I 


n  - 1 


/f^-4%^ 


/ 


LTBRA.RY 

OF   THE 

Theological   Seminary 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 
Case,     ^QCL  Di 


lioo/c. 


N*. 


SLyU    /fid 


^    «%f««W« 


^5  \\   wttt's 


•  #  ♦         *    J  # 


/;  *•  '♦ 


•  ' 


*      K    9 


REMARKS 


A  LETTER  OF  MR.  DAVID  JONES 


ADDRESSED  TO  THE  AUTHOR 


ON  OCCASION  OF 


HIS  SERMON  ON  CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM. 


TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED 


A  REVIEW 


Mr.  Robinson's  History  of  Baptism 


BY  JOHN  P.  CAMPBELL, 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRINTED  BV^  DENNIS  HEARTT 

T812. 


PREFACE, 


As  little  things  sometimes  lead  to  consider- 
able events,  so  it  is  hoped  that  Mr.  Jones'  late 
work,  containing  a  review  of  my  sermon  on 
Christian  Baptism,  and  an  examination  of  Mr. 
Edward's  pamphlet,  a  work  which  must  be 
thought,  I  conceive,  by  every  competent  and  un- 
prejudiced judge,  a  little  thing,  too  little  to  de- 
serve formal  notice,  may  nevertheless  have  its 
uses.  Its  appearance  before  the  public  with  confi- 
dent, and  to  persons  little  informed,  with  impo- 
singpretensions,  and  especially  its  high  estima- 
tion and  currency  with  many  oi*  the  advocates  of 
immersion,  make  some  reply  necessary;  and  in 
this  eventitma}  be  considered  as  giving  occasion 
to  the  introduction  of  new  and  important  mat- 
ter on  the  points  in  controversy,  and  thus  be- 
coming greatly  useful  to  the  interests  of  Chris- 
tian baptism.  But  what  most  deserves  our  no- 
tice concerning  this  production  on  the  score  of 
consequential  or  indirect  utility,  is,  tliat  it  af- 
fords a  fair  occasion  for  coming  into  contact 
with  the  Baptist  historian,  Mr.  Robinson,  and, 
by  a  i-eview  of  his  work,  for  laying  before  the 
public  a  variety  of  facts  vastly  important  to 
the  solution  of  the  question  relative  to  tlit 


practice  of  the  Christian  church,  as  to  bapj, 
tism,  in  the  first  ages  of  its  existence.  In  th& 
review  of  Mr.  Robinson's  history  1  have  aim- 
ed at  reducing  the  facts  wliich  bear  upon  the 
question  to  as  short  a  compass  as  possible,  and 
thus  presenting  the  religious  world  with  an 
abstract  of  historical  evidence  as  it  respects 
both  the  subjects  and  the  mode  of  baptism, 
for  the  Hrst  four  centuries,  which  shall  be  ac- 
cessible to  every  reader.  Such  an  abstract,  it 
is  presumed,  is  greatly  needed,  in  as  much  as 
Mr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism  is  not 
only  a  rare  book  but  too  voluminous  for  general 
circulation.  That  the  work  may  be  satisfactory 
to  the  learned,  as  well  as  useful  to  the  common 
reader,  I  have  in  all  instances  added  the  origi- 
nal passages  from  the  Fathers,  except  in  a  few 
quotations  where  the  length  of  the  passage,  or 
other  important  reasons,  seemed  to  forbid  it.  In 
the  execution  of  the  work  now  proposed  to  the 
public,  I  have  examined  most  of  the  original 
authorities  for  myself,  and  having  made  the 
quotations  directly,  know  them  to  be  correct. 
Indeed,  in  no  instance  have  I  cited  a  single 
passage  from  the  early  Christian  writers  but 
such  as  are  cited  either  from  the  original  itself, 
or  such  authority  as  has  been  always  admitted 
by  the  more  learned  and  respectable  Baptist 
authors. 

When  I  had  my  conviction  first  settled  on 
the  subject  of  baptism  it  was  on  the  ground  of 
scriptural  evidence  alone;  because  at  that  time 
I  neither  knew  nor  sought  any  other.  Indeed, 


the  evidence  from  liistory  had,  on  the  one  hand, 
been  so  partially  stated,  and  on  the  otlier,  so 
violently  spurned  as  sottish  tradition,  that  it 
seemed  to  hold  out  to  the  inquisitive  and  anx- 
ious mind  little  more  than  a  dubious  and  per- 
haps a  deceitful  light.  I  had,  therefore,  aban- 
doned almost  entirely  that  species  of  evidence; 
but  for  some  time  past  I  have  spent  my  hours 
of  leisure  in  examining  the  report  of  the  fa- 
thers respecting  baptism,  and  the  result  of  my 
researches  has  been  a  fall  conviction  that  the 
whole  light  of  antiquity  is  favourable  to  the 
practice  of  baptizing  infants,  and  not  materially 
opposed  to  our  views  of  the  mode  of  baptism: — 
that  the  Paidobaptist  writers,  such  as  Baxter, 
Craddock  and  Wall,  have  faithfully  i*eported 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers: — and  that  the  re- 
presentations of  the  Baptist  writers,  generally 
speaking,  were  far,  very  far  from  being  strictly, 
much  less  impartially  just.  Never  did  my  mind 
feel  more  entirely  and  exultingly  the  triumph 
of  evidence  than  when  I  read  Mr.  Hobinson's 
History  of  Baptism,  and  saw  that  after  all  his 
painful  and  elaborate  research  into  antiquity  he 
was  unable  to  find  any  thing  solid  to  oppose  to 
the  facts  so  luminously  and  so  cogently  stated 
on  the  other  side. 

It  will  perhaps  be  said  that  Mr.  Robinson's 
work  is  but  little  known,  and  that  any  suchreview 
of  it  is  unimportant.  Butalthough  the  bookbein 
few  hands,  yet  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
no  small  number  of  the  Baptist  preachers  have 
had  access  to  it,  and  are  employed  in  giving 


diftusive  cii'culation  to  the  aiithoi*'s  imposiag 
representations;  and  at  any  rate  Mr.  Jones  has 
endeavoured  to  do  the  same  thing,  or  at  least 
to  give  celebrity  to  the  w  ork,  by  his  late  pub- 
lication, which  is  industriously  circulated  in 
our  country.  I  may  add  also  that  Mr.  Robinson, 
as  an  historian,  has  been  made  instrumental  in 
bringing  over  the  western  IVew-Lights  to  im- 
mersion, and  has.  lent  bis  illuminations  to  the 
Shakers,  who,  iinding  the  inlidel  spirit  and  dis- 
torted representations  apparent  in  his  works, 
and  particularly  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Research- 
es, entirely  to  their  taste,  have  quoted  him  as 
an  authority  of  great  moment  in  their  blasphe- 
mous testimony.  A  corrective,  therefore,  was 
imperiously  required,  and  in  the  following  Re- 
view it  has  been  humbly  attempted. 


REMARKS 

ON 

MR.  JONES'  LETTER 


Mr.  Jones'  Review  of  my  sermon  on  Christian 
Baptism  has  some  claim  upon  my  attention;  not  indeed 
upon  the  footing  of  intrinsic  merit,  but  on  the  ground 
of  public  expectation,  which  always  seems  to  invoke 
a  defence,  even  where  the  assault  is  feeble  and  harm- 
less. 

It  might  be  deemed  indecorous  did  I  pass  over  in  en- 
tire silence  the  author's  polite  reproof  of  my  total  igno- 
ranee  of  antiquity,  and  my  consequent  temerity  in  pub- 
lishing a  work  *'  so  contrary  to  the  sentiments  of  learn- 
ed men  and  truth;"  or  it  might  be  thought  a  violation 
of  the  laws  of  gratitude  no  less  than  of  decorum  did  I 
forget  his  kind  pity  for  my  weakness  in  writing  on  a  sub- 
ject with  which  I  was  so  little  acquainted,  or  his  very 
charitable  apology  for  my  aberrations  from  truth  when 
he  says  I  have  been  "  led  astray  by  authors  not  fully 
informed  on  the  subject;"  and  yet  I  must  honesdy 
confess  myself  but  little  prepared  to  appreciate  either 
the  gentleman's  superior  information  or  those  soft  emo- 
tions of  pity  and  charity  which  thrill  his  benevolent 
bosom! 

I  shall  be  allowed,  I  presume,  to  ask  who  are  those 
leai-ned  men  whose  sentiments  I  have  so  flagrantly  out- 
laged  by  my  sermon?    Mr.  Jones  mentions  none  but 


8 

Dr.  Gill,  and  him  only  in  reference  to  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism.  He  thinks  had  I  read  that  author's  disserta- 
tion on  the  subject  my  sermon  had  never  appeared.  I 
cannot  tell  how  it  may  affect  him  to  know  it,  but  I 
will  now  inform  him  that  I  was  no  stranger  to  Dr. 
Gill  previous  to  its  publication,  and  yet  my  sermon 
did  appear.  I  did  not  then,  nor  do  I  now  think,  that 
any  thing-  which  has  been  opposed  to  the  existence  of 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism  before  the  time  of  Christ  by 
Gill,  Gale,  Benson,  Booth  and  Robinson,  can  at  all 
invalidate  the  enlightened  induction  of  facts  and  solid 
inferences  of  Lightfoot,  Selden,  Hammond,  Wall,  and 
other  distinguished  writers  on  the  opposite  side.  Much 
less  do  they  invalidate  the  testimonies  of  the  Christian 
Fathers  and  the  Jewish  writers  themselves,  who,  it 
may  be  justly  presumed,  were  infinitely  better  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  and  customs  of  the  ancient 
Jews  than  any  modern  writer  can  possibly  be.  The 
author  touches  the  same  subject  once  or  twice  after- 
wards, but  does  little  more  than  eulogize  Dr.  Gill's 
pamphlet,  which  he  says  no  man  ever  presumed  to 
answer,  and  which  he  recommends  to  the  people  of 
Kentucky  for  republication  as  an  unanswerable  pro- 
duction*. As  to  the  circumstance  of  its  never  hav- 
ing been  answered  there  is  but  little  cause  of  tri- 
umph; because  a  production  may  be  too  frivolous  to 
deserve  an  answer,  or  it  may  have  failed  so  entirely  in 
accomplishing  its  object,  as  to  render  a  reply  to  it  su- 
perfluous. This  last  is  precisely  the  fact  with  respect  to 
Dr.  Gill,  who  m  that  very  treatise  has  failed  to  over- 
throw the  stubborn  facts  and  luminous  arguments  of 
Mr.  Wall  and  others.  Indeed  a  public  decision  has  been 
given  in  favour  of  Mr.  Wall,  as  well  as  the  doctrine 
he  advocates,  by  a  bench  of  critics  distinguished  for 
literary  eminence.  When  such  men  as  Abemethy, 
Bonnycastle,  Crowe,  Dickson,  Tooke,  Wood,  Hincks, 

*  Review,  page  11,  15, 


with  their  illustrious  associates  in  review,  have  giveu 
it  as  their  deliberate  judgment  that  "  Mr.  Wall  has 
made  it  highly  probable^  to  say  the  least,  from  many- 
testimonies  of  the  Jewish  writers,  who,  without  a  dis- 
senting voice,  allow  the  fact,  that  the  practice  of  Jew- 
ish baptism  obtained  before,  and  at,  as  well  as  after, 
our  Saviour's  time;"  and  moreover  proceed  to  evince 
the  fact  by  forcible  arguments  of  their  own,  it  must 
be  deemed  a  matter  of  trivial  importance  whether  or 
not  Dr.  Gill  has  been  directly  answered.^  And  with 
respect  to  the  reprinting  of  the  unanswerable  pamphlet 
in  Kentucky  I  v/ill  pledge  myself,  whenever  it  shall  be 
done,  to  produce,  if  heaven  permit,  something  in  op- 
position quite  as  unanswerable  as  itself.  To  every  im- 
partial inquirer  the  Jewish  testimonies  must  have  great 
weight,  and  especially  when  it  is  considered  tliat  the 
practice  which  is  reported  to  have  had  so  ancient  a 
date  in  their  history,  did  still  exist  among  them.  Add 
to  this  the  testimony  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  as 
Irenasus,  Tertullian,  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  Ori- 
gen,  Cyprian,  Basil,  and  Gregory  Nazianzen,  ail  of 
whom  give  testimony  to  the  same  fact.  Surely  these 
men,  and  the  ancient  Jewish  writers,  are  much  more 
entitled  to  credit  than  are  Dr.  Gill  and  a  few  other 
modern  authors. 

But  Mr.  Jones,  as  if  distrusting  the  lights  of  Dr. 
Gill,  cai-ries  the  appeal  to  "  the  law  and  to  the  testimo- 
ny," and  this  he  is  very  sure  contains  nothing  like  a 
hint  of  any  such  custom.  Maimonides  says  baptism 
was  in  the  desert  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  and 
quotes  Exodus  xix.  10.  in  proof  of  it;  considering  the 
word  sanctify  as  bearing  the  same  signification  with 
baptize.  And  indeed  Dr.  Hammond  lends  his  autho- 
rity to  the  same  interpretation,  in  his  note  on  1  Cor. 
vii.  14.  where  he  observes  that  the  Hebrew  word 
ti'lp,  commonly  interpreted  to  sanctify,  signified 
to  wash.    And  nothing  is  better  known  than  that  dy.^ 

*  See  Recs'  Cvclopedi?,  Art,  Bapiism. 

P. 


10 

<)i}'(cS'^  the  corresponding  word  in  Gi'eek,  often  denotes 
to  cleanse\  to  purify  by  religious  washi?ig,  to  conse- 
crate, and  the  like.  In  this  sense  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers  use  it  frequently;  and  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen  with  the  Greek  fathers,  make  use  of  it  to  express 
baptism.-^  In  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Ezekiel's  pro- 
phecy there  is  a  very  distinct  allusion,  not  only  to  bap- 
tism, but  even  to  the  baptism  of  infants.  "  I  sware  un- 
to thee  and  entered  into  covenant  with  thee,  saith  the 
Lord  God,  and  thou  becamest  mine;  then  washed  I 
thee  with  water,  yea,  I  thoroughly  washed  away  thy 
blood  from  thee  and  annointed  thee  with  oil."  See  v. 
1 — 9.  The  accession  of  God's  ancient  people  to  his 
covenant,  and  their  visible  relation  to  himself  after  their 
deliverance  from  a  state  of  nature,  was  by  washing  with 
water,  or  baptism,  just  as  the  new  born  infant  was 
washed  with  water  after  the  birth.  John  'i.  2^.  can 
have  no  other  allusion  than  to  the  baptism  of  pro- 
selytes, though  Mr.  Jones  has  been  pleased  to  call  the 
comment  made  upon  it  in  my  sermon  a  fancy  of  my 
orvn,  and  foreign  to  truth.  The  priests  and  Levites 
express  no  surprise  at  John's  baptizing  on  any  other 
account  than  that  of  his  not  being  "  the  Christ,  nor 
Elias,  nor  a  prophet.'''' ■\  Had  he  been  either  the  one  ov 
the  other  of  these  tliree  it  would  have  been  deemed 
tiatisfactory  by  this  deputation;  but  upon  John's  deny- 
ing that  he  was  either,  they  instantly  remon- 
strated against  the  impropriety  of  his  baptizing  and 
collecting  followers.  *'  TFhy  baptizest  thou  then?^\ 
The  question  carries  a  clear  implication  that  baptism- 
was  not  a  new  thing  in  their  nation,  and  that  a  prophet 
<vould  have  been  expected  to  perform  it;  for  it  is  plain 

*  See  Dr.  Campbell's  Preliminary  Dissertations.  D.  vi.  P.  iv. 

t  .4  prophet — So  the  words  «  5rgo?i»)Tjjf  are  rendered  in  "the 
margin  of  Scoii's  Bible,  and  so  it  is  evident  they  should  have  been 
rendered;  because  it  is  manifest  the  Jews  had  no  particular  pro- 
phet in  expectation  except  Elies;  many  of  them  looked  for"  Jcre- 
mu)h  or  one  of  tlie  prophets."  Matt.  xvi.  14.  Mark  xvi.  15.  Luke 
ix.  8.  To  translate  the  words  "  the  prophet'^  and  explain  theni  at?. 
meaning  Ciirist,  is,  to  be  sure,  a  miserable  gloss. 


11 

they  speak  of  the  rite  as  a  thing  with  which  they  weje 
ah'eady  acquainted,  but  are  at  a  loss  to  see  the  reason 
of  his  performing  it.  As  to  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Jones  that  the  comment  is  an  imagination  ofTny  own 
— a  suggestion  which  was  doubtless  designed  to  ope- 
rate unfavourably  upon  the  success  of  the  opinion  in  the 
world,  I  have  only  to  observe,  that  were  it  even  true,  it 
would  not  disgrace  me;  but  in  reality  the  fact  is  other- 
wise, for  many  persons,  distinguished  for  their  talents 
and  literature,  have  taken  the  same  view  of  the  text 
which  I  have  done;  and  had  the  gentleman  been  as 
largely  read,  as  he  would  have  his  readers  think,  he 
would  have  spared  a  remark  which  serves  only  to  ex^ 
pose  himself. 

The  gentleman  proceeds  to  correct  a  mistake  of 
mine,  namely,  using  the  words  disciple  and  proselyte 
as  sj'Uonymous  terms.  "  Proselyte,' '  says  he,  "  means 
a  person  who  embraces  the  Jewish  system;  but  it  is 
never  applied  to  one  who  professed  Christianity,,  whe- 
ther Jew  or  Greek."  p.  6.  I  used  the  word  proselyte, 
in  its  plain  English  sense,  and  in  the  very  sense  which, 
I  presume,  Mr.  Jones,  notwithstanding  this  meagre 
criticism,  uses  it  himself.  In  his  examination  of  Mr. 
Edwards'  pamphlet,  p.  172,  he  intimates  a  hope  as  to 
the  good  effects  of  his  book  with  men  of  learning  and 
piety,that  if  it  should  induce  them  toexaminethe  subject 
with  candour  he  has  no  doubt  "  but  some  proselytes 
may  be  made  in  America."  If  his  own  definition  is  to 
be  made  the  rule  of  interpretation,  that  the  \\ov(!^  prose- 
lyte signifies  one  "  ivho  embraces  the  Jewish  system,'''' 
not  one  who  professes  Christianity,  then  we  will  be 
compelled  to  believe  that  Mr.  Jones  hopes  his 
book  may  make  men  Jews,  not  Christians.  But 
surely  he  did  not  mean  this— and,  therefore,  when  he 
comes  to  correct  me  he  gives  the  word  a  meaning 
which  either  he  himself  does  not  believe,  or  which,  if 
he  does,  would  make  him  and  all  who  think  with  him^ 
Jews.  No;  after  all  he  understands  the  word  as  I  do,  tp 


1^ 

designate  a  person  who  is  brought  ove^,  or  becomes  a 
convert  to  any  doctrine  or  religion,  and  consequently 
the  same  thing  with  disciple.  But  "  to  render  the  word 
p<»9->jTgu(r«Te  by  the  English  \\'0\'&  proselyte,''''  says  the 
learned  gentleman,  "  is  an  unwarranted  translation, 
which  none  can  approve  of  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  Greek  language."  ibid.  Ah,  indeed!  How  then 
came  Dr.  Doddridge  to  adopt  this  very  translation? 
"Go  forth,  therefore,  and  proselyte  all  nations."*  Was 
he  not  acquainted  with  Greek?  So  it  would  seem  from 
tlie  assertion  of  Mr.  Jones,  who  unquestionably  merits, 
if  ever  mortal  did,  the  description  once  given  of  a  cer- 
tain polemic  hero, 

"  Learned  he  was,  and  could  take  note, 
Transcribe,  collect^  translate  and  quote." 

I  am  referred  by  the  learned  gentleman  to  his  refuta- 
tion of  Mr.  Edwards  to  see  "  the  subject  Jiiili/  and 
fairly  discussed!" — Upon  turning  to  that  part  of  his 
work  I  find  it  replete  with  criticism  which  is  designed 
to  prove  that  the  word  ^(xS-j^tsuw  means  to  teach,  p.  16G. 
Rethinks  Acts  xiv.  15.  a  fine  instance  of  the  interpre- 
tation which  he  adopts — "  When  they  had  preached 
the  gospel  to  that  city  ^\\(S:  taught  many.''''  But  if  the 
rendering  of  Parkhurst  and  Doddridge,  who  translate 
the  word  to  make  disciples,  be  allowed,  the  text  will 
afford  a  luminous  proof  that  the  word  in  question 
means  some  thing  more*  than  to  teach — thus,  "  And 
having  preached  the  gospel  to  that  city  and  made  many 
disciples,  they  returned  again  to  Lystra."/o/272iv.  1.  is  . 
an  instance  no  less  unfortunate  for  the  learned  gentle- 
man's meaning;  "  the  Pharisees  had  heard  that  Jesus 
7nade  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John."  This  is 
just  the  very  sense  we  contend  for  in  Matt,  xxviii,  19, 
y.uBijTaig  utoico  is  the  best  possible  exposition  of  the 
meaning  of  ^uaS-jjTsuw,  both  which  mean  to  make  disci- 
ples; and  serves  to  show  that  our  translation  of  the 

*  Doddridge's  translation  of  the  New  Testament.  INIatt.  xxviii.  19. 


text  in  question  is  correct,  thus  *'  Go  and  make  disci- 
ples of  all  nations^  baptizing  them^  &c.  and  just  so  our 
translators  have  rendered  this  very  word  in  the  preced- 
ing chapter;  Matt,    xxvii.  57.    *'  Who  also  himself 

(ifjiccB-y^Tiva-i  rco  Ir^c-oZ)  Was  JcsUs'  disciplc." 

The  author  now  takes  a  bold  position,  and  chal- 
lenges the  world  to  produce  one  passage  in  the  Neiu 
Testament  where  the  ruord  disciple  is  used  in  reference 
to  a  person  not  previously  taught,  p.  167.  One  fact  is 
worth  a  thousand  criticisms;  and  in  Acts  xv.  10.  he 
will  find  the  word  disciples  applied  to  persons  that 
could  not  have  been  previously  taught.  "  Now,  there- 
fore, why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck 
of  the  disciples,  which  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were 
able  to  bear."  The  fact  which  gave  occasion  to  this 
spirited  remonstrance  of  Peter  was,  that  certain  persons 
from  Judea  went  to  Antioch  and  toid  the  brethren  that 
unless  they  should  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of 
Moses  they  could  not  be  saved.  This  occasioned  a  hot 
controversy  among  the  Christians,  and  ^vas  referred  for 
decision  to  a  council  of  the  apostles  and  brethren  at 
Jerusalem.  In  that  council,  and  on  the  subject  of  cir- 
cumcision, Peter  was  then  speaking  when  he  called  it 
an  intolerable  yoke.  Now,  to  whom,  in  Antioch,  would 
the  Judaizing  teachers  have  applied  circumcision?  To 
all  those  that  had  believed  the  gospel  and  professed  the 
religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  with  their  children,  even  to 
babes  of  eight  days  old;  for  all  these,  after  the  manner 
of  Moses,  were  required  to  be  circumcised.  To  all 
these^  then,  to  infants  as  well  as  to  adults,  the  term  dis- 
ciples is  positively  applied;  and  this  plain  fact  puts 
aside  the  Baptist  idea  that  a  disciple  is  necessarily  one 
who  has  been  actually  taught.  Infants,  therefore,  no  less 
than  adults,  may  be  disciples  in  the  scripture  sense  of 
the  word;  and  being  such,  there  is  a  positive  command 
for  baptizing  them,  "  Go  and  make  disciples,  baptizing 
them,  i.  e.  disciples;"  which  statute,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  fore  considered  fact,  docs,  according  to 


14 

hws  of  sound  interpretation,  amount  to  a  positive  pre- 
cept for  infant  baptism.  Though  it  be  quite  sufficient 
to  settle  our  faith  and  practice,  as  Christians,  that  God 
has  determined  certain  evangehcal  institutions  with- 
out inquiring  into  their  fitness  or  utiUty;  yet  I  may  be 
allowed  to  ask,  even  on  the  ground  of  propriety,  why 
may  not  infants  be  taken  into  the  school  of  Christ? 
Who  will  venture  to  deny  that  the  great  Teacher  can 
have  access  to  their  tender  minds  even  before  they  are 
capable  of  regular  instruction?  "  Who  will  undertake 
to  limit  the  prophetical  office  of  Christ,  and  say  that  his 
spirit  can  have  no  access  to  the  soul  of  an  infant?  At  any 
rate,  infants  soon  become  capable  of  instruction,  and 
whose  disciples  should  they  be  but  Christ's?  who  has 
said,  '  suffer  little  children  and  forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  " 

The  learned  gentleman  then  proceeds  to  prove,  from 
ecclesiastical  history,  that  in  primitive  times  there  were 
scliools  in  which  the  candidates  for  baptism  were  care- 
fully instructed  in  the  principles  of  the  Christian  religion 
before  they  were  allowed  to  be  baptized,  p.  168.  From 
Robinson's  History  of  Baptism  he  presses  us  with  a 
number  of  instances  of  persons,  who,  though  the  chil- 
dren of  Christians,  and  even  of  bishops,  were  retained 
in  the  catechumen  state  for  a  greater  or  less  time  be- 
fore they  received  baptism;  such  as  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  Nectarius,  Chrysostom,  Basil,  and  Constantine. 
With  respect  to  the  probationary  state  in  order  to  bap- 
tism, I  readily  admit  the  fact  of  its  having  obtained  for 
a  considerable  time  in  the  Christian  church;  yetlmustbc 
allowed  to  remark,  that  however  useful  such  an  institu- 
tion might  have  originally  been,  there  cannot  remain  a 
doubt  that  it  was  at  the  time  to  which  this  gentleman 
refers,  and  indeed  long  before  it,  a  distinguished  part 
of  that  monstrous  system  of  corruption  and  supersti- 
tion,  which  ultimately  overwhelmed  the  church  of 
Christ.  These  catechumens,  of  whom  Mr.  ^.Robinson 
•And  his  admirer  Mr.  Jones  makes  so  much,  were  ini- 


id 

tiated  into  the  catechumen  state  by  the  sign  of  the 
cross  and  the  imposition  of  hands,  were  divided  into 
several  orders,  were  exercised  with  fasting  and  confes- 
sion, went  veiled  some  days  before  baptism,  and  pas- 
sed through  several  other  probationary  steps  still  more- 
absurd  and  unscriptural,  before  they  were  consum 
mated  by  baptism. 

Such  is  the  worthy  institution  to  which  we  are  re- 
ferred for  proof  that  the  ancients  knew  nothing  of 
making  disciples  otherwise  than  by  instruction.  Now 
should  the  catechumen  system  be  allowed  to  have 
been  infinitely  better  than  it  really  was,  what  has  it  to 
do  in  support  of  the  cause  of  baptism,  when  they,  as 
a  society,  catechize  no  body,  either  for  baptism  or  any 
thing  else?  Or  if  they  did,  still  their  conduct  would 
stand  in  direct  opposition  to  plain  scriptural  fact,  as  all 
the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testament  were  instantane- 
ously performed  upon  the  proseiytism  of  the  persons 
who  were  thus  added  to  the  church.  The  primiti\c 
method  was,  agreeably  to  the  divine  commission,  first 
10  disciple  and  baptize^  and  then  to  instruct.  Some  of 
the  fatliers  and  these  gentlemen  invert  this  order;  first 
instruct  in  order  to  disciple^  and  then  baptize.  Whom 
we  should  follow  none  can  be  at  a  loss  to  determine. 
It  is  not  denied  that  preaching  the  gospel  involves  in- 
struction to  a  certain  degree,  but  then  that  is  not  the: 
regular  and  systematic  instruction  for  which  Mr.  Jones 
seems  to  contend. 

When  Baptist  writers  thus  recur  to  the  history  of 
the  Fathers,  or  other  persons  of  ancient  times,  who  re 
ceived  baptism  after  passing  a  course  of  regular  in- 
struction and  at  an  advanced  period  of  life,  the  world 
ought  to  know  that  the  matter  of  fact  has  not  been 
fairly  and  fully  reported.  In  those  ages  the  causes 
operathig  a  delay  of  baptism  were  various,  and  candoui* 
required  that  they  should  have  been  stated  by  our  op- 
ponents. There  was  at  that  time  a  glowing  and  highly  su- 
perstitious veneration  for  baptismal  water,  whicli  it  was 


16 

conceived,  was  so  sanctified  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  it,  and  the  incorporation  of  his  energy  with 
its  substance  as  to  be  endued  with  the  power  of  washing 
away  all  past  sins  and  of  generating  in  the  soul  a  new  and 
spii'itual  life — in  a  word,  that  it  possessed  the  power  of 
saving  the  soul* — Hence  some  deferred  their  baptism  to 
the  very  last  hour  of  life,  that  they  might,  after  having 
given  unrestrained  indulgence  to  their  lusts,  wash 
away  all  their  sins  and  die  saints.  Some  thought  that 
sins  committed  after  baptism  (as  the  ordinance  could  be 
performed  upon  them  but  once)  would  be  danming, 
or  nearly  so;  and  of  course  put  off  baptism,  except  in 
cases  of  necessity,  until  the  habits  of  virtue  should  be 
confirmed,  and  sufficient  security  against  the  danger 
of  relapse  into  sin  attained.  Tertullian,  who  was  in- 
deed a  man  of  talents  and  learning  but  of  an  austere 
and  whimsical  cast  of  mind,  patronized  this  idea  with 
great  ardour  in  reference  to  persons,  both  children  and 
adults,  whose  religious  instruction  was  not  particularly 
provided  for  in  the  church.  Some  delayed  baptism  till 
their  thirtieth  year,  in  imitation  of  the  Saviour  who 
was  not  baptized  till  that  age — while  others  carried 
the  matter  of  imitating  .Christ  so  far  as  to  defer  their 
baptism  till  they  could  make  it  practicable  to  be  bap- 
tized at  Jordan.  On  this  pretence,  and  not  to  receive 
thorough  instruction  as  Mr.  Jones  erroneously  states, 
it  was  that  Constantine  delayed  his  baptism  until  death 

*  Tertullian,  Ambrose,  and  others  of  the  Fathers,  speak  of  the 
water  with  a  degree  of  rapturous  extravagance.  Thus  Tertullian, 
FceHx  sacramentum  aqus  nostrse,  quin  ablutis  delictis  pristinae 
csecitatis,  in  vitam  eternam  liberamur — Supervenit  enini  statim 
Spiritus  de  caslis,  et  aquis  superest,  sanctificanns  eas  de  semeiipso, 
et  ila  sanctificatas  vim  sanctificandi  combibunt — Primus  liquor  quod 
viveret  edidit,  ne  mirum  sit  in  baptismo,  si  aqux  animare  move- 
Tunt.  De  baplismo  cap.  i.  iii.  iv.  Ambrose  says,  O  aqua  quae  sacra- 
mentum Christi  esse  meruisti:  quae  lavas  omnia,  nee  lavaris! — Tu 
nomen  prophetis  et  apostolis,  tu  nomen  Salvaturi  dedisti,  illi  nobis 
c(Kli,iUi  salmundi,illa  fons  vitJc  est.  Ambros.  in  Lucam.  IJb.  10, 

cup.   X-  ': 


17 

became  inevitable,  and  was  baptized  of  course  by 
siDrinkling-.* — And  lastly,  a  number  put  off  their  bap- 
tism until  an  opportunity  might  offer  for  being  baptiz- 
ed by  the  hands  of  some  favourite  bishop.f 

But,  after  all,  the  facts  relative  to  the  baptism  of 
such  persons  are  not  fairly  represented  by  either  Mr. 
Robinson  or  his  eulogist,  Mr.  Jones.  Concisely  stated 
they  are  these — The  father  of  Theodosius  I.  was  not  a 
baptized  Christian  himself  when  his  sonwas  born,  and  of 
course  it  was  not  wonderful  that  Theodosius  should 
not  have  been  baptized  in  infancy.  There  is  not  the 
shadow  of  proof  that  Basil  was  baptized  in  adult  age; 
but,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  evidence  to  induce  a  l^e- 
lief  that  he  was  baptized  in  infancy;  and  one  fact  is 
well  known,  namely,  that  he  was  both  the  advocate  and 
practiser  of  infant  baptism.  With  respect  to  Nectari- 
us,  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  he  was  bom  of 
Christian  parents;  nor  is  it  known  who  or  what  they 
were.  The  parents  of  Chrysostom  were,  in  all  proba- 
bility, heathens  at  the  time  of  Kis  birth:  his  father  died 
soon  after  he  was  born,  and  his  mother  was  baptized 
after  himself;  consequently  his  baptism  at  adult  age 
has  as  little  to  do  in  this  controversy  as  that  of  the 
eunuch  or  Cornelius.  The  delay  of  baptism  in  the  case 
of  Gregory  Nazianzen  is  easily  accounted  for,  without 
supposing  that  it  was  not  tUe  custom  to  baptize  infants 
in  that  period;  for  this  had  been  before,  as  well  as  it 
was  at  his  own  time,  the  prevailing  practice  of  the 
church.  The  true  reason  was,  that  in  some  parts  of  the 
church,  and  as  appears  from  Gregory's  writings,  some 

*  Speravit  enirn,  se  nancisci  po«se  occasionem,  ut  in  Jordane  (in 
quo  baptizatus  erat  Christus)  baptismum  susciperet.  Spirituali  ex- 
inde  laetitia  perfusus  in  lecto  splendidissimo  decumbens.  Deo  gra- 
tias  hisce  verbis  egit:  Jam  me  vitam  eternam  sortitum  liquet,  jam 
nie  divinam  consecutuni  lucem  certum  est.  Kromayeri  Ecclesia 
in  Politia,  p.  142.  Vide  Esebius  De  Vita  Constantini,  lib.  4.  c,  62. 

t  The  reader  will  find  all  these  different  notions  agitated  in  the 
nfe  of  Constantine  by  Esusebius,  Augustine's  confession,  and  in  tlve 
wtiiirrgs  of  Tertiiirraji,  Gregorv  NsBsiaozen,  Basil,  Sec. 

C 


18 

Christianswere, contrary  to  personalcoiiviction,  in  theha-, 
bit  of  neglecting  and  delaying  the  baptism  of  their  chil- 
dren. Itis  thus  seenthat  the  adult  baptisms,  of  wliich  Mt. 
Robinson  and  Mr.  Jones  make  so  much,  are  not  in 
point  and  have  not  in  reality  the  least  possible  bearing 
on  the  question.* 

But  the  Fathers,  says  Mr.  Jones,  render  fxa^i^n^ju  to 
signify  teaching,  which  implies  that  they  believed  the 
doctrine  of  previous  instruction.  And  what  if  they  did? 
Corrupt  practices-  in  religion  always  generate  corrupt 
interpretations.  The  translation  which  they  gave  of 
Matt,  xxviii.  19.  no  less  than  others,  grew  out  of  their 
superstitious  views  respecting  baptism  and  the  anti- 
scriptural  system  of  a  catechetical  series  of  instruction, 
in  order  to  the  reception  of  baptism  by  candidates. 
Without  derogating,  therefore,  from  the  -honours  of 
this  /ioari/  interpretatio?i,  I  must  be  permitted  to  pro- 
nounce it  erroneous,  even  though  it  has  been  sanction- 
ed by  the  names  of  Gale  and  Robinson.  The  word 
juotS-jjTsuft),  then,  when  governing  an  accusative,  does 
not,  nor  can  signify  to  teach,  but  to  disciple,  or  to  pro- 
selyte. This  translation  is  not  the  offspring  of  necessi- 
ty— the  child  of  private  criticism,  brought  forward  to 
serve  a  turn;  but  one  that  has  obtained  the  sanction  of 
the  ablest  biblical  critics,  and  has  passed  into  eveiy 
recent  version  of  the  scriptures. f 

From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  will  be  perceived 
tJiat  the  translation  adopted  in  my  sermon,  namely, 
Go,  disciple  or  proselyte  all  nations,  is  no  novel  or  up- 

*  If  the  reader  wishes  to  see  Messrs.  Robinson  and  Jones  amply- 
refuted,  let  him  consult  Mr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism, 
Pt.  2.  ch.  3. 

t  The  word  |K«^sTei;i7-«Te.  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  is  thus  rendered  by  the 
following  very  learned  and  judicious  critics;  <-'■  Proftrlyte"  Dodd- 
i-idere — "  Make  disciples"  Paikhurst  and  Wakefield — "  Convert,'" 
Pvle  and  Campbell — "  Disci/ile"  Guise  and  Scott — "  Make  disci- 
pits  in  all  nativns,'*  Wynne.  Sec  Dr.  Campbell's  note  on  this 
text< 


\9 

start  thing — nor  yet  a  matter  at  war  with  Greek,  as  Mr. 
Jones  would  suggest.  It  will  be  remarked  ako  that  the 
Baptist  writers,  Gale,  Robinson  and  the  rest,  act  with 
strange  inconsistence  when  they  appeal  to  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers  relative  to  immersion,  instruction  prtvious 
to  baptism  and  the  meaning  of  the  above  word;  and  yet 
when  we  avail  ourselves  of  such  testimony,  not  for 
opinion,  but  respecting  a  mere  matter  of  fact,  namely, 
the  baptism  of  infants^  we  are  spurned  for  our  weak- 
ness and  credulity — and  the  Fathers — O  yes,  the  Fa- 
thers are  most  illiberally  reviled  as  a  set  of  arrant  fools, 
fanatics,  and  tyrants.  Such  censure  is  as  illiberal  as  it 
is  dangerous,  since  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is  the 
very  base  on  which  the  authenticity  of  scripture  rests. 
Many  of  their  reasonings,  I  readily  confess,  were  weak 
and  their  criticisms  puerile;  yet  as  witnesses  of  matters 
of  fact,  such  as  the  customs  and  opinicuis  prevalent  in 
the  church  in  their  day,  their  integrity  cannot  be  ques- 
tigned  without  manifest  danger. 

It  has  been  matter  of  rank  offence,  it  seems,  that  I 
have  brought  so  little  in,cense  to  the  shrine  of  the  bap- 
tizing John — I  called  him  a  Jewish  prophet. — This  Vvas 
my  sin!  Mr.  Jones  remonstrates — "  You  say  'John  was 
really  nothing  else  but  a  Jewish  prophet' — Pray  sir 
who  told  you  so?"  p.  7.  Malachi  for  one  told  me  so, 
who  calls  him  (ch.  iv.  4.)  "  Elijah  the  Prophet," 
meaning,  as  an  inspired  interpreter  has  expounded  it., 
that  he  should  appear  "  in  the  spirit  and  po^^  er  of  Eli- 
as,"  should  resemble  Elias  in  the  turn  and  manner  of 
his  life,  and  be  the  same  to  the  Jews  in  his  day  th^vt 
Elias  had  been  in  his,  a  bold,  active  reformer  and 
a  prophet.  Zacheus  told  me  so,  Luke  i.  76.  "  TIidu, 
child,  shalt  be  called  the  Prophet  of  the  Highest." 
Jesus  Clirist  told  me  so  when  he  called  him  "  a  Pro- 
phet^ yea  and  more  than  a  prophet?''  Matt.  xi.  9.  He 
was  a  prophet,  and  preeminently  such,  on  account  of 
his  proximity  to  the  gospel  dispensation  and  the  near 
relation  he  bore  to  the  Saviour  as  his  precursor  aixJ 


20 

messenger:  yet  when  the  blaze  of  evangelical  day  is  to 
form  the  ground  of  comparison,  we  see  him  who  tow- 
ered above  the  prophets  dwindle  before  the  humblest 
minister  of  the  new  dispensation — "  he  thatis  least  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  greater  than  he."  And  he  was  a 
Jexvish  prophet,  because  the  whole  legal  economy  was 
in  full  force,  not  only  during,  but  subsequent  to  his 
ministry,  and  he  with  all  his  followers  was  subject  to 
its  institutions.  See  my  sermon  on  Christian  Baptism., 
2d  Ed.  Proofs  and,  Illustrations,  No.  1  and  2. 

Waving  things  of  minor  consequence,  let  us  at- 
tend to  Mr.  Jones  as  a  translator.  "  I  render  sv  i^cfxi 
in  ■water^^''  says  Mr,  Jones,  "  because  that  preposition 
must  mean  in  when  it  is  used  to  point  out  a  place."  p. 
8.  You  render  sv  JJ'ciiT*  in  water! — Dr.  Gill,  whose 
judgment  has  infinitely  more  weight,  had  done  so  be« 
fore  you  and  you  had  only  to  copy  him.  The  transla- 
tion however,  be  it  whose  it  may,  is  incapable  of  de- 
fence. The  preposition  is  far  from  possessing  any  pow- 
er to  designate  the  place  where  the  transaction,  namel}-, 
John's  baptizing,  took  place;  because  that  transaction 
happened  in  many  places,  and  still  it  was  gv  J<F<xt<  that  he 
baptized.  The  power  of  ^v  in  the  description  respects 
the  material  used  in  baptism,  that  is  thcAvater,  as  very 
clearly  appears  from  the  antithesis  in  this  very  verse; 
*'  I  indeed  baptize  you  (sv  J^ctxi)  with  water;  he  shall 
baptize  you  (ev  Trvgu^^^T*  u,yib3  kxi  ttv^i)  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire."  Matt.  iii.  11.  Here  iv  has  pre- 
cisely the  same  application.  But  to  what  does  it  relate? 
The;  places  where  John  baptized  with  water  and  Jesus 
w^ith  the  Holy  Ghost?  Not  at  all;  but  to  the  thing  used 
in  these  several  baptisms,  namely,  the  ivater  of  John 
and  the  Moli/  Spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  dissolves  the 
bubble.  Our  common  translation,  with  ivater  and  r;  ith 
the  Holy  Ghost  aiid  with  fire,  (which,  indeed,  is  gi'cat- 
ly  preferable  as  being  both  more  intelligible  and  more 
correct)  has  been  sypported  by  the  almost  unanimous 


1^^^     TW 


21 

judgment  of  the  ablest  biblical  critics,  as  Hammond^ 
Doddridge,  Parkhurst,  Scott,  &c.  But  what  is  stiU 
better,  it  is  supported  by  fact,  the  greatest  and  best  of 
all  interpreters.  The  above  cited  prediction  Avas  lite- 
rally fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  disci- 
ples were  literally  baptized  -with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
ivithjire  by  a  risen  Saviour.  But  how  were  they  bap- 
tized? By  being  dipped  in  the  Holy  Ghost?  dipped  in 
fire?  No,  the  reverse  of  this.  The  sacred  historian  de- 
clares the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  and  shed,  forth 
\\ipon  them;  and  that  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire  sat 

w.^...  .1 ^7  ■ ,1  ^   1 ^!„_    „r  c ^J.^j.   „r  ^i,„ 


^pon  them:   this  was  the  baptism  of  fire,  that  of  the 
Ho 


oly  Ghost.  Such  is  the  fact,  but  how  unlike  the  batk 
which  the  absurd  version  of  Mr.  Jones  would  prepare 
for  the  immersion  of  these  disciples.  I  know  the  gen- 
tleman's subterfuge;  like  Mr.  Booth  and  Thomas  El- 
wood  his  honest  Quaker,  he  resorts  to  the  thing  which 
on  that  occasion  filled  the  house  to  furnish  the  means 
of  immersion.  But  to  avoid  the  palpable  and  humili- 
ating absurdity  of  resting  the  idea  upon  the  sound 
filling  the  house,  Mr.  Jones  adds  a  new  circumstance 
to  the  history  of  the  fact,  namely,  that  it  was  the  power 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  that  filled  the  house.  "  This  sound," 
says  he,  "  had  something  that  made  it,  and  that  was 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  (wVyre^)  like  as  a  mighty 
rushing  wind,  and  that  is  what  filled  all  the  house. 
The  pronoun  it  is  not  in  the  Greek;  and  the  words 
read  as  well,  '  and  filled  all  the  house.'  Now  if  the 
house  was  filled,  and  they  were  in  the  house,  surround- 
ed with  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  were 
immersed  in  him.''^  Answer  to  Edwards,  p.  151.  When 
people  are  permitted  to  fabricate  facts  it  is  easy  to  prove 
any  thing;  yet  we  are  not  disposed  to  allow  Mr.  Jones 
this  dangerous  license,  however  useful  it  might  be  to 
his  hypothesis;  but  will  confine  him  rigidly  to  the  facts 
as  detailed  by  the  pen  of  inspiration.  Reading  the  pas- 
sage, as  he  wishes  it,  gives  no  new  idea,  nor  the  least 
intimation  that  the  poioer  of  the  Holy  Ghost  filed  all 


2^ 

the  house.  It  would  run  thus;  '^  And  suddenly  tliehc 
came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind 
and  filled  all  the  house."  Now  what  came  from  heaven? 
what  filled  all  the  house?  "  A  sound,"  says  the  text — 
"  The  power  of  the  Holy  Ghast,"  says  Mr.  Jones!  The 
contradiction  is  palpable.  Still  then,  in  defiance  of  cri- 
ticism, it  was  a  sound  which  filled  all  the  house.  Thi^ 
sound,  however  solemn,  was  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  nor 
yet  his  baptizing  influence,  but  the  awe  inspiring  mo- 
nitor of  his  approaching  majesty.  Thus  when  God  was 
about  to  visit  Elijah  "  there  was  a  great  and  strong 
"Vvind  which  rent  the  mountains  and  brake  in  pieces  the 
rocks,  but  the  Lord  Avas  not  in  the  wind;  and  after  the 
wind  an  earthquake,  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the  earth- 
quake." Just  so  when  the  sound  came  from  heaven  and 
tilled  all  the  house,  tlw  Spirit  was  not  i7i.  tlic  sounds 
As  yet  the  disciples  were  not  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire;  that  event  is  described  in  the  suc- 
ceeding verses.  "  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tongues  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them — 
and  they  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began 
to  speak  with  tongues."  Acts  ii.  2 — 4.  That  this, 
•not  the  previous  sound,  constitutes  the  fact  of  their 
baptism  appears  incontrovertibly  clear  from  the  samCL 
event  having  taken  place,  on  another  occasion,  with- 
out the  accompaniment  of  the  sound  from  heaven.  It 
happened  in  the  house  of  Cornelius  \A'hen  "  the  Holy 
Ghost  y^//  on  all  who  heard  the  word" — when  "  on  the 
Gentiles  also,  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Hol\- 
Ghost;"  and  they  were  heard  to  "  speak  with  tongues 
and  magmfij  GoiV  T\\\%  failing  upon,  this  pouring  out 
upon,  St.  Peter  calls  in  express  tej-ms  a  baptism,  and 
says  moreover,  that  it,  no  less  than  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost,  was  a  fulfilment  of  the  pro- 
phecy uttered  by  John  the  baptizer,  and  after  him  by 
Jesus  Christ.  "  And  as  I  began  to  speak  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginninc;. 
Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  ho\y  that  he 


23 
said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  \fater;  but  ye  shaljl 

BE   BAPTIZED  WITH  THE  HoLY  GhOST."  ActS  X.  44 

— 46.  and  xi.  15,  16.  With  these  facts  before  him  let 
the  reader  recal  a  previous  remark  of  JNlr.  Jones,  when 
he  says,  "  It  has  been  my  opinion  for  some  years  that 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  external;  and  that 
in  the  4th  verse,  '  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,'  was 
something  superior  and  distinct  from  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  p.  150.  and  he  will  have  a  fairspecimen  of 
the  folly  and  grossness  to  which  false  theory  can  urgfe 
the  human  mind.  Nothing  canexceed  in  weakness,  con- 
trariety to  fact,  and  gro»ssnes,s  of  idea,  this  comment  of 
Mr.  Jones  on  the  facts  mentioned  in  Acts  ii.  The  idea  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  coming  down  as  a  thin  substance,  filling 
all  the  house,  and  thus  forming  a  bath,  deep  and  large, 
so  that  the  disciples  were  immersed  in  it,  and  thus 
received  an  external  baptism^  is  as  coarse  and  forbid- 
ing,  as  it  is  derogatory  to  the  Good  Spirit.  The  Holy 
Ghost  transformed  to  a  material  substance  and  acting 
externally  M^ow  the  bodies  of  the  dijsciples!  What  extra- 
vagance! 

But  truth  wipe§  away  such  cobwebs  at  a  single 
brush.  St.  Peter,  who  says  that  the  Holy  Ghost j^// 
upon^  that  is  baptized.,  Cornelius  and  his  friends  as  he 
did  himself  and  the  others  at  the  beginning.,  i.  e.  on 
the  memorable  morning  of  PentecOst.  This  id,entifies 
the  baptism  of  the  apostles  at  Pentecost  and  of  Corne- 
lius and  his  company,  and  puts  it  beyond  doubt  that 
the  "  sound  from  heaven"  had  nothing  to  do  with  the 
baptism  on  the  first  occasion — besides,  the  effects  of 
the  baptisms  in  both  cases  being  the  same,  serve  alsa 
to  identify  them,  for  it  is  said  of  both  parties  that  be- 
ing thus  baptized  they  spake  with  tongues  and  glorifi- 
ed God. 

But  allowing  Baptist  writers  all  they  fancy,  or  plead 
for,  in  the  present  case,  still  the  the  thing,  whatever  it 
was,  which  came  down  from  heaven  upon  the  house  and 
filled  it,  ^yould  fail  to  answer  their  views>.  of  baptizing. 


24 

For  this  was  baptism  by  pouring  or  affusion,  and  of 
course  on  the  principles  of  baptists,  720  baptism — Immer- 
sion of  the  whole  body,  and  nothing  else  will  pass  with 
them  for  a  real  and  proper  baptism. 

Mr.  Jones  endeavours  to  prove  that  the  legal  dispen- 
sation ended  when  John  began  his  ministry.  Luke  xvi. 
16.  "  The  law  and  theprophetswere  until  John:  since  that 
time  the  kingdom  of  God  is  preached,  and  every  man 
presseth  into  it."  p.  8.  But  how  does  this  text  prove  the 
point  for  which  it  is  adduced?  The  law  and  the  prophets 
xvere  untilJohn.  This,  Mr.  Jones  thinks,  will  prove  that 
the  law  or  legal  dispensation  ended  when  John  wassentto 
baptize;  and  if  it  does,  will  it  not,  by  a  like  necessity  of 
inference,  prove  also  that  the  prophets  ended  too  when 
John  was  sent  to  baptize?  The  last  inference  is  mani- 
festly absurd,  and  the  first,  resting  on  the  same  evi- 
dence,  must  be  equally  so.  Fact  also  and  plain  scrip- 
ture show  its  falsehood,  and  since  John  and  his  fol- 
lowers obeyed  the  law,  and  Christ  with  his  disciples 
was  subject  to  the  law  in  all  its  requirements  down  to 
the  time  of  his  sufferings — nay  more,  that  he  positively 
enjoined  it  on  others  to  conform  to  its  demands.  See 
Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3.  Mark  i.  44.  Luke  v.  14. 

"  The  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John" — This 
observation  is  precisely  similar  to  one  recorded  by 
Matthew,  "  for  the  prophets  and  the  law  prophesied 
until  John."  the  meaning  of  which  is  that  the  prophets 
and  the  law  were  the  lights  given  for  the  illumination  of 
the  world  till  John  rose  to  minister  a  clearer  light  and 
give  fuller  information  on  points  already  touched  by 
'  the  prophets  and  the  law;  yet  John  was  without  any 
authority  to  supercede  or  annul  either  the  one  or  the 
other.  "  Since  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  preach- 
ed and  every  man  passeth  into  it" — that  is,  since  the 
period  of  John's  commencing  his  ministry,  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  is  preached  with  increased  light  and 
energy   and   the    happy  consequence    has  been  thUt 


25 

greater  attention  is  paid  to  the  ministers  of  religion  and 
better  success  attends  their  message. 

To  make  the  rise  of  the  evangehcal  dispensation 
synchronize  with  the  baptism  of  John  grossly  contra- 
dicts the  general  impression  of  scripture  fact.  For  if 
the  gospel  dispensation  was  set  up  when  John  began 
to  baptize,  it  may  be  asked  how  came  John  himself  to 
preach  just  the  contrary,  saying  "  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand?"  or  how  did  it  happen  that  Jesus 
Christ  delivered  the  very  same  message?  or  why  did  it 
come  to  pass  that  the  Saviour  commissioned  his  own 
disciples  to  preach  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand?"  and  the  seventy  to  proclaim  just  that  much  and 
no  more — "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  nigh  unto 
you?"  In  a  word,  this  violent  position  gives  the  lie  to 
the  whole  series  of  the  evangelical  story. 

Mr.  Jones  is  quite  shocked  at  my  assertions  respect- 
ing the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  thinks  they  cr<°  such  as 
demofistrate  my  irreverence  for  the  Son  of  God.  p.  11. 
But  what  does  the  gentleman  oppose  to  the  idea  of 
Christ's  baptism  by  John  being  done  in  obedience  to 
law  and  for  his  consecration  to  office?  Nothing,  surely, 
remarkable  either  for  its  intelligence  or  strength.  He 
says  it  was  not  John  but  God  that  consecrated  Jesus 
a  priest.  But  where  is  his  proof  that  John  did  not  con- 
secrate Jesus?  He  offers  none — I  assert  that  both  God 
and  John  consecrated  the  blessed  Saviour — John  wash- 
ed him  with  water  as  Moses  did  Aaron,  and  the  great 
God  anointed  him.,  immediately  afterwards,  -with  the 
Holy  Ghost  andxvithpoxver^  saying,  "Thou  art  my  Son, 
this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  Comp.  Matt.  iii.  13 — 
17.  Mark  i.  10, 11.  Acts  x.  38.  Heb.  v.  1—5.  See  this 
subject  more  largely  treated  in  my  Sermon,  2d  Ed.  p, 
7,  8.  and  Proofs  and  Illustrations  No.  2, 

*  As  to  Mark.  i.  1.  "  Thebeginnint^of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
the  Son  of  God"  is  simply  the  title  prefixed  to  the  book,  express 
sing  only  the  subject  in  it,  and  has  no  bearing  whatever  on  the 
rjuestion. 

D 


26 

Mr.  Jones  attempts  here,  as  he  often  does,  to  operate 
on  the,  popularity  of  my  strmon  by  treating  this  opi- 
nion as  a  whim  of  my  own,  and  too  extravagant  to  be 
either  asserted  or  believed  by  any  one  else.  These  in- 
sinuations recoil  upon  himself  and  demonstrate  how 
little  he  has  read,  as  several  authors  of  eminence  have 
explained  Matt.  iii.  15.  "  Thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil 
all  righteousness^^''  in  the  same  manner  that  I  have  done. 
See  Jenning's  Jewish  Antiquities,  vol.  i.  204.  Cowles' 
Sermons  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  71. 

The  learned  gentleman,  after  endeavouring  to  prop  the 
falling  notion  of  John's  baptism  and  the  Christian  bap- 
tism being  the  same  and  again  referring  me  to  his  pam- 
phlet for  ^full  investigation  of  the  subjcct^YQYnonsXr^iQS 
thus:  "  Why  do  you  call  John's  baptism  that  ofrepent- 
anceV  p.  14, 15.  I  do  so  because  John  spoke  of  it  m  the 
same  style — "  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto 
repentance;" — because  St.  Luke  in  his  gospel  ex- 
pressly   calls    it     THE     BAPTISM  OF   REPENTANCE;"' 

■—and  because  St.  Paul  has  more  than  once 
pronounced  it  '*  the  baptism  of  repentance." 
Matt.  iii.  11.  Luke  iii.  3.  Acts  xiii.  24  and  19. 
Here,  sir,  is  a  threefold  cord,  which  mocks  your  feeble 
attempt4o  break  it.  In  vain  do  you  persuade  the  world 
tliat  Jesus  received  John's  baptism.  It  w^as  a  baptism 
leading  to  and  symbolizing  repentance;  an  outward  pu- 
rification by  water  indicative  of  that  moral  preparation 
of  soul  and  of  life  necessaiy  to  the  Jews  on  the  approach 
of  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Now  this  being  the  fact, 
let  the  candid  inqun^er  after  truth  ask  himself  whe- 
ther he  can  believe  it  possible  that  Jesus  "  who  did  no 
sin,"  underwent  such  a  baptism!  What,  the  spotless 
Saviour  received  a  baptism  requiring  repentance! 
What,  baptized  unto  repentance  when  without  sin! 
Impossible,  absurd!  Mr.  Jones,  who  can  publish  it  to 
the  world  that  Jesus  was  really  the  subject  of  John's 
baptism,  speaks  but  awkwardly  to  me  about  irrever- 
ence for  the  Sou  of  Gody  unblushing  ignorance  and  act- 


27 

ing  unbecoming  the  ministerial  character,  when  a  fact 
like  this  would  reflect  deep  dishonour  on  the  Son  of 
God  and  tear  up  by  the  very  roots  the  religion  he  has 
founded  in  the  earth.  No,  the  baptism  of  Jesus  was 
THE  BAPTISM  OF  RIGHTEOUSNESS,  uot  of  repent- 
ance. He  was  made  under  the  law,  not  under  the  min- 
istry of  John,  erroneously  said  to  be  the  commence- 
ment of  the  gospel  dispensation.  He  came  to  fulfil  the 
law — to  fulfil  all  righteousness.  It  was  God's  law,  not 
that  of  men;  and  Christ's  obedience  put  honour  upon 
it.  If  any  thing  can  exceed  the  absurdity  of  the  doc- 
trine thus  refuted,  it  is  that  of  confounding  John's 
baptism  with  the  Christian  baptism.  Never  were  two 
things  more  remarkably  discriminated,  in  doctrine  and 
fact,  than  are  these  in  the  New  Testament:  and  yet  we 
see  people  plead  for  their  identity  as  ardently,  as  perti- 
naciously as  if  the  controversy  involved  some  cardinal 
point  of  Christianity.  But  no  wonder;  it  is  the  life's- 
blood  of  their  system  for  which  they  contend. — They 
are  to  be  pardoned. 

In  reference  to  these  subjects  Mr.  Jones  does  me 
the  honour  of  considering  me  as  an  original.  They  are 
my  own,  he  remarks;  they  are  worthy  of  me:  no  man 
ever  presumed  to  say  so  before."^ 

This  sorry  irony  is  designed  to  reproach  these  doc- 
trines as  being  the  whimsies  of  an  obscure  individual 
and  therefore  unworthy  of  general  estimation  and  credit. 
Buried  in  the  forests  of  the  Great  Valley  of  the  Missi- 
sippi,  and  remote  from  the  scene  of  illumination,  I  can 
originate  nothing.  These  things  have  their  use;  and  no 
doubt  with  a  certain  sort  of  readers  will  be  thought 
wonderful.  But  before  they  celebrate  a  triumph,  let 
me  inform  them  and  the  sapient  Mr.  Jones,  that  I  am 
so  far  from  inventing  these  doctrines  that  I  leaimed  them 
about  sixteen  years  ago  by  reading  the  worksof  Matthew, 
Luke,  and  Paul,  with  other  inspired  writers.  Yes,  from 

"  See  papre  9.  IC.  1  L 


^8 

them  I  took  these  very  obnoxious  and  irreverent  doc- 
trines,  as  they  are  called,  and  that  too  at  a  time  when 
tny  soul  hung  with  anxious  solicitude  on  the  question, 
what  is  Christian  baptism?  Some  years  after  this  I 
found  that  many  authors,  of  great  eminence  for  learn- 
ing and  piety,  had  received  the  same  views  of  the  sub- 
ject I  had  done,  as  I  successively  became  acquainted 
with  the  writings  of  Jennings,  Whitby,  Clarke,  Henry, 
Pyle,  Scott,  Cowley,  Miller,  Pirie,  and  several  others. 
More  than  this,  1  have  recently  observed  that  most  of 
the  Fathers,  as  Tertullian,  Origen,  and  Basil,  had  very 
clearly  distinguished  the  Christian  baptism  from  the 
baptism  of  John!— These  facts  are  worthy  of  notice, 
as  they  form  a  correct  scale  for  estimating  the  precise 
ratio  of  Mr.  Jones'  information,  as  well  as  furnish  me 
with  an  honourable  relief  from  the  condemnation  of  be- 
ing an  originaL 

The  learned  gentleman  thinks  there  is  a  capital  er- 
ror among  us  in  discussing  the  mode  of  baptism;  name- 
ly, ^wt/i^^y^w/^  of  lexicographers  and  the  translation 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  p.  15.  As  to  the  first  branch 
of  the  charge,  1  remark,  that  lexicographers  are  but 
men,  and  may  be  wrong;  consequently  they  are  not 
to  be  implicitly  followed.  That  many  of  them,  regard- 
ing rather  Jewish  customs  and  the  practice  of  the 
church  after  she  had  corrupted  the  mode  of  baptism  as 
well  as  other  rites  than  either  the  use  of  the  word  in 
scripture  or  the  Greek  idiom,  have  improperly  trans- 
lated the  word  (ixTrri^u)  as  meaning  exclusively  to  d/p, 
plunge^  or  immerse,  we  believe  and  sa}-;  nay  more  than 
this,  we  prove  by  positive  examples  and  facts.  But  do 
all  lexicographers  and  critics  give  this  exclusive  inter- 
pretation? So  Mr.  Jones  with  his  usual  candor  \\ould 
insinuate;  but  this  in  reality  is  not  the  fact.  Many  wri- 
ters of  great  literary  eminence  have  decided  differently; 
that  the  \vord  does  not  necessarily  mean  to  immerse, 
but  to  wash,  and  even  to  sprinkle. 

Such  are  Casaubon,  Craddock,  Leigh,   Pool,  Van 


2.9 

Mastricht,  Grotius,  Guise,  Brown,  Scott,  and  Schleus- 
ner,  with  a  number  more,  justly  celebrated  for  biblical 
erudition.  With  these  authors  we  entirely  agree;  and 
can  therefore  with  truth  declare,  that  Mr.  Jones  does 
not  state  the  fact  when  he  says,  we  find  flaiit  with  lexi- 
cographers, and  that  writers  of  this  discription  are  on 
the  side  of  immersion. 

It  is  not  denied,  however,  that  we  differ  from 
some  lexicographers  and  critics  in  explaining  this 
word  and  others  of  the  same  connection. 

For  some  reason,  and  most  probably  from  the  fact  cf 
immersion's  having  formerly  been  the  most  popular 
mode  of  baptizing  in  the  church  of  England,  a  num. 
ber  of  writers,  distingushed  for  literature  in  that  estab- 
lishment, have  decided  that  the  meaning  of  the  word 
(iocTrn^co  is  to  dip,  or  plunge.  Of  thi^  sort  are  Burnet, 
Keach,  Whitby,  and  others. 

These  authors  have  been  copied  by  some  late  wri- 
ters,  such  as  Campbell  and  M'Night,  without  due  ex  • 
amination.  Thus,  for  instance,  Dr.  Campbell  asserts 
■'  the  word  /3«7rT4^w,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in 
classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  itninerse;*  and 
was  rendered  in  Tertuliian,  the  Latin  Fathers,  tingere, 
the  term  used  for  dying  cloth,  which  was  by  immer- 
sion." And  in  another  place  he  remarks:  "  The  He- 
brew *7nD  perfectly  corresponds  to  the  Greek  ^xtttu 
and3*7rTi^w,  which  are  synonimous,  and  is  always  ren- 
dered by  one  or  other  of  them  in  the  Septuagint."^ 
That  Dr.  Campbell  was  mistaken  will  be  manifest 
from  the  subjoined  examination  of  the  sense  in  which 
these  words  are  used  in  the  original  Scriptures  and 
the  Septuagint.  The  Hebrew  bUD  is  found,  as  I  believe, 
in  the  following  texts  only;  Gen.  xxxvii.  31.  Exod, 
xii.  22.  Lev.  iv.  6,  17.  ix.  9.  xiv.  C,  16,  51.  Numb. 
xix.  18.  Deut.   xxxiii.  24.  Josh.  iii.  15.  Ruth  ii.  14'. 

*  See  Camphell's  Notes  on  Mat^  iii.  1 1.  and  Marli  vii.  4.    , 


1  Sam.  xiv.  27.  2  Kings  v.  14.  viii.  15.  Job.  ix.  31. 
Ezek.  xxiii.  15. 

Now  this  Hebrew  word  in  the  very  first  of  the  fore- 
going texts,  contrary  to  what  Dr.  Campbell  asserts, 
is  not  m  the  Septuagint  rendered  either  by  ^xtttco  or 
^otTTTj^w,  but  by  |UoAuv«,  a  word  which  does  not  common- 
ly, much  less  necessarily,  signify  to  plunge,  or  dip,  but 
tp  smear,  to  pollute,  or  defile.  See  Kev.  lii.  4.  xiv.  4. 

And  this  is  evidently  the  rendering  here: — "  And 
(tS^D*  £|Uo Auvatv)  they  smeared  or  died  the  coat  with  the 
blood."  Not  only  the  word  of  the  original,  but  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  fact,  show  dipping  to  have  been 
impracticable;  for  few,  I  apprehend,  will  believe  it 
probable  or  even  possible  that  Joseph's  many  coloured 
coat  could  have  been  plunged  into  or  dipped  all  over 
in  a  kid's  blood  spilt  on  the  ground  in  the  field. 

In  all  the  other  passages  the  Hebrew  word  is  translated 
by  ^atTTTw  in  the  Septuagint,  except  2  Kings  v.  14. 
where  the  word  0«7rT«^«  is  used.  Let  us  see  in  what 
sense  the  words  are  employed  by  the  sacred  writers  in 
some  of  the  rest.  In  Exod.  xii.  22.  Lev.  iv.  6,  17 — 
ix.  9.  and  Numb.  xix.  .18.  it  w^as  divinely  required 
that  a  hyssop  branch  should  be  dipped  in  the  blood  or 
waters  of  purification,  and  that  the  priest's  finger  should 
be  dipped  m  the  blood  of  the  victim;  yet  no  person 
can  thuik  that  either  the  hyssop  branch  or  the  priest's 
finger  was  plunged  all  over  in  the  water  or  blood.  An- 
other ceremonial  statute  was  that  '■'■Xht  priest  should  take 
some  of/ and  pour  it  into  the  palm  of  his  own  left  hand, 
and  dip  his  right  finger  in  the  oil  that  is  in  his  left 
liand,"  dec.  Lev.  xiv.  15 — 17.  Here  again  the  entire 
immersion  of  the  priest's  finger  was  impossible. 

Lev.  xiv.  6,  51.  "As  fcr  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take 
it,  and  the  cedar  wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop, 
and  shall  dip  them  and  the  living  bird  in  the  blood  of 
the  bird  that  was  killed  over  the  running  water." 
Here  also  entire  clipping  'wiis  in  the  very  nature  of 


31 

things,  utterly  impracticable;  as  all  must  believe  that  the 
whole  mass  of  blood  belonging  to  one  bird,  could  it 
have  been  drawn  out  and  collected  in  a  suitable  ves- 
sel, would  have  been  quite  insufficient  for  the  entire 
immersion  of  its  fellow  bird,  much  more  so  for  the 
cedar  wood,  the  scarlet  and  the  hyssop. 

Josh.  iii.  15.  "  And  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare 
the  ark  (iS^Di  e/SoiCp^jc-av)  were  dipped  in  the  brim  of 
the  water."  In  this  passage  we  are  not  to  understand 
that  the  feet  of  the  priests  were  entirely  covered  with 
water;  for  in  reference  to  the  same  fact  it  is  distinctly 
stated,  in  the  thirteenth  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  that 
the  soles  of  their  feet  only  were  wet  with  the  waters  of 
Jordan. 

In  Ezek.  xxiii.  15.  the  deep  stained  tiaras  of  the  ima- 
ges  of  the  Chaldeans />ow7*?raz/c^o/?  the  ivallwith  Vermil- 
lion are  described  by  the  words  Heb.  D^bllD  LXX 
Tra^at/S'Jt^Tflt,  rendered  in  our  translation  '■'■  dyed  attire:''' 
an  instance  which  positively  precludes  the  very  idea 
of  dipping;  for  these  deep  coloured  turbans  were 
thrown  on  the  wall  with  a  pencil  or  brush. 

The  signification  of  the  word  '^HD , then,  as  suggested  by 
the  previous  collation  of  passages,  signifies  to  smear,  to 
tinge,  or  wet  with  some  liquid:  and  this  isthe  very  sense 
put  upon  it  by  the  Vulgate,  Pagninus,  Tremelius,  Bux- 
torf,and  Tromius;  and  constitutes  the  primary  and  most 
proper  signification  of /3a^7rTiy;  which  does  not  originally 
and  primitively  signifiy  to  immerse,  but  comes  to  take 
that  as  a  secondary  meaning  from  the  circumstance  of 
materials  being  sometimes  dipped  when  they  are  dyed- 

In Psalms Ixviii.  23. "  Thatthy  foot  (LXX  ^a<^^)  may 
be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies."  The  Hebrew 
word  corresponding  with  ^ct,7rrco  is  VnO,  which  signi- 
fies to  strike,  wound,  or  imbue  deeply;  and  one  circum- 
stance involved  in  the  description,  namely,  that  the 
tongues  of  the  dogs  were  to  be  imbued  with  the  blood 
of  the  fallen,  as  well  as  the  foot  of  the  victorious  war- 
rior, shows  very  clearly  that  entire  immersion  is  not 


the  idea  contained  in  the  passage,  as  in  doing  this  h 
part  of  the  tongue  only  could  have  been  dipped. 

This  word  occurs  twice  more  in  the  Septuagint; 
namely,  in  Dan.  iv.  35.  and  v.  21.  where  it  is  said  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  V  his  body  (s/Bacpv?)  was  wet  with 
the  due  of  heaven."  The  corresponding  Chaldaic  word 
in  these  passages  is  )^2^,  which  always  denotes  to 
paint,  to  tinge,  to  wet,  to  moisten,  to  imbue,  but  never 
to  dip,  or  to  plunge.  Thus  it  is  rendered  by  Buxtorf, 
Parkhurst,  and  others.  And  besides  the  circumstances 
of  the  fact  show  that  though  the  body  of  this  monarch 
was  wet  entirely  with  the  falling  dew,  yet  it  was 
done  not  by  dipping  but  by  a  gentle  and  even  gradual 
affusion. 

It  is  in  the  same  sense  tliat  the  New  Testaihent  wri- 
ters use  the  word  ^oc-rrrw.  I  will  only  produce  a  single 
instance,  though  several  ~  others  are  equally  accessible 
to  every  person  at  all  acquainted  with  biblical  learning. 
It  is  Rev.  xix.  13.  when  l,u«Tiov  ^z&xy.ivov  aif^un  signi- 
fies, "  a  vesture  stained  or  sprinkled  with  blood,"  and 
so  it  ought  to  have  been  rendered. 

This  is  the  translation  of  Schleusner,  Festis  tincta 
sanguine,  and  of  Montanus,  Vestimentum  tinctum  san- 
guine— "  a  vesture  stained  with  blood."  The  Vulgate 
or  Jerome's  transUition,  renders  this  passage  thus,  Et 
vestitus  erat  veste  aspersa  sanguine;  "  and  he  Avas 
clothed  in  a  ^armtnt  sprinkled  with  blood.'''' 

The  correctness  of  this  translation  will  be  obvious 
to  every  person,  who  will  compare  the  prediction,  of 
which  this  is  a  part,  with  that  in  Isaiali  (Ixiii.  1 — 5.) 
which  relates  to  the  same  fact  in  prophetic  history, 
namely,  the  sanguinary  and  tremendous  slaughter  of 
Antichrist  and  his  army  in  the  vale  of  Megiddo  by 
the  avenging  Redeemer,  who  is  there  represented 
as  saying,  "  their  blood  shall  be  sprinkled  upon  my 
garments  and  I  will  stain  all  my  raiment '♦^"- — Indeed  th<' 

*  %:e  Fabcr's  Ge;i.'Con.  View  of  Prophecies,  p.  15"— 15,". 


35 

circumstances  thrown  into  the  description  show  entife 
immersion  not  to  be  the  idea,  in  as  much  as  the  person, 
who  treads  a  wine-press  never  dips  entirely  and  at 
once  the  vesture  he  wears,  but  gradually  and  even  par- 
tially stains  it  with  the  blood  of  the  grape.  In  most,  if 
not  all  the  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament  where 
(^ccTTTca  occurs,  it  retains  its  primitive  sense,  to  stain^  to 
steeps  or  to  imbue.*  It  is  not  denied  that  the  word  does 
mean  also  to  dip^  or  immerse;  but  then  it  is  to  be  un- 
derstood that  this  is  its  secondary,  not  its  primary 
meaning,  acquired  from  the  circumstance  of  dipping 
things  in  order  to  dye  them. 

The  word  /3«7rT<^<w  takes  the  same  signification  with 
its  radical  (SatTTTw,  but  is  never  used  in  its  primitive 
sense  in  the  Greek  scriptures,  unless,  perhaps,  it 
should  be  the  baptism  of  blood  mentioned  in  Matt.  xx. 
22.  Luke  xii.  50.,  which  was  a  staining  with  blood 
in  the  way  of  affusion,  and  took  place  literally  in  the 
case  of  Christ  and  his  disciples  shedding  and  being 
stained  with  their  own  blood  while  they  delivered  their 
testimony.  The  Latin  Fathers  are  fond  of  applying 
these  texts  in  the  sense  of  a  literal  baptism  with  blood. 
Thus  Tertullian;  De  Baptismo  c.  10.  "  Est  quidem  no- 
bis etiam  secundum  lavacrum  unum  et  ipsum,  san- 
guinis scilicit:  De  quo  Dominus,  Habeo,  inquit,  bap- 
tismo tingui,  quum  jam  tinctus  fuisset.  Venerat  enim 
per  aquam  et  per  sanguinem,  sicut  Joannes  scripsit,  ut 
aqua  tingueretur  et  sanguine  glorificaretur.  Proinde 
ut  nos  faceret  aqua  vocatos,  sanguine  electos;  et  hos  du- 
os baptismos  de  vulnereperfossi  lateris  emisset."  This 
word  occurs  but  tw^ice  in  the  Septuagint,  namely,  m 
2  Kings  V.  14.  and  Is.  xxi.  4. 

*  It  must  be  apparent,  I  think,  to  the  careful  and  unprejudiced 
inquirer,  who  reads  our  transh^tion,  that  those  who  made  it  did  not 
intend  to  convey  tiie  idea  of  entire  immersion  by  the  word  dili,  in 
every  instance  wliere  it  is  tised;  but  of  sfainlug,  drJiUng.,  imhur-_ 
i,ig,  8cc. 

E 


34 

In  the  first  of  these,  where  it  is  said  of  Naaman,  "  He 
dipped  {i(ioc7rri(roi,To)  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan,"  it 
is  used  interehangeably  with  Jc*9-oi^»(w,  which  is  often 
synonimous  with  ^'(Xvw,  to  sprinkle,  and  signifies  to 
purify,  as  will  api:)ear  by  the  following  examples.  Ps. 
li.  Purge  (LXX.  '?cx,vTi^g,sp?'inkk)  me  with  hyssop  and 
(LXX.  )tflt9-<3t^(fl-0>iVo|W<xi)  J  shall  he  clean:''  Ezek.  "  Then 
(LXX.  ^'avw)  /  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you 
and  (LXX.  KoiB-oc^KxIy^ffi^k)  ye  shall  be  clean."^  When 
this  known  application  of  the  word  is  understood,  and 
with  it,  that  in  case  of  purification  for  leprosy  seven 
sprinklings  were  practised  under  the  law,  a  doubt,  it 
is  presumed,  need  not  remain  whether  the  seven  dap- 
tisms  of  the  leprous  Syrian  were  seven  aspersions  or 
sprinklings.  Lev.  xiv.  7. 

The  passage  from  Isaiah,  "  fearfulness  [^xirri^n)  af- 
frighted me,"  is  figurative,  and  determines  nothing 
certainly  concerning  the  meaning  of  the  word.  It  is 
employed,  however,  in  that  place  to  translate  the 
Hebrew  word  nyi2,  which  signifies  to  startle,  affright, 
OY  perturb,  as  one  is  started  by  the  unexpected  dash- 
ing, or  pouring  of  water  upon  the  face  or  naked  skin. 

BotTTTj^w  is  twice  used  in  the  Apocryphal  scriptures, 
which  being  original  Greek  and  very  ancient  ai"e 
weighty  authority  as  to  Jewish  customs  and  the  man- 
ner of  using  the  word. 

It  is  said  of  Judith  that  getting  up  in  the  night  she 
went  out  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia  (x-atj  k^ot^ivTi^iTo  iv 
r^  7r(3t^£jW/3oA>5'  Itt)  rr,?  TTviy'^g  tou  v^ccrog)  "  and  baptized 
at  a  well  of  water  in  or  by  the  camp."t  The  practice 

*  With  the  texts  above  cited  let  the  reader  consult  John  ii.  6. 
iii.  23.  with  Matt.  xv.  2,  20.  Mark  vii.  4.  and  Luke  xi.  38.  Eph.  v, 
2  5.  Lev,  XV,  12.  in  the  Greek  scriptures,  with  Schleusner,  Park- 
hurst,  and  Hammond  on  the  word,  and  he  will  see  that  nx^x^t'C^ea  is 
used  as  the  synonimc  pf  ^osTTi^s^,  and  means  Imfstize  and  Jmufi/. 

t  Judith,  xii.  7.  The  preposition  ivt,  as  will  be  explained  more 
fully  afterwards,  is  properly  rendered  af — It  is  entirely  gratuitous 
to  suppose  that  Juilith  dipped  herself  all  over  in  a  spring  or  well  in 


35 

of  washing  the  hands  before  praying  was  not  only 
common  among  the  Jews,  as  Clemens  of  Alexandria 
informs  us,  but  so  superstitiously  admired,  that  it  was 
often  observed  in  the  night  and  even  in  bed.  It  was  a 
washing  of  this  sort,  as  Lomier  justly  remarks,  which 
that  intrepid  female  practised  in  the  fact  of  her  midnight 
baptism  and  prayer. 

Under  the  Levitical  law,  when  a  person  had  touched 
a  dead  body,  the  rule  in  common  cases  was  this;  "  He 
shall  purify  hiinself  with,  it  (the  water  of  seperation;) 
and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  be  clean."  But  failing 
to  observe  this  rule,  the  penalty  was,  "  that  soul  shall 
be  cut  off  from  Israel,  because  the  water  of  separa- 
tion was  not  sprinkled  upon  him."  Numb.  xix.  li — 
13.  Now  this  purification  by  sprinkling  is,  in  Eccle- 
siasticus,  chap,  xxxiv.  v.  25.,  railed  a  baptism  (o  3«7r- 
t/^ousvo?  atto  viK^oZ)  '■'■He  that  baptizeth  himself  after 
touching  a  dead  body,  if  hetouchitagainwhatavaileth(Tw 
AouT^to)  the  baptism.'''^  The  word  is  thus  rendered  by 
Pagninus  (ci^/z/^z/^)  "  purified,"  and  the  act  described 
by  [ablutio)  "  ablution,"  a  pliraseology  denoting  a  spe- 
cies of  washing  in  which  there  is  no  dipping. 

In  the  New  Testament  it  is  frequently  used  in  the 
same  sense,  and  indeed  seldom  in  any  other.  It  is  al- 
most always  taken  to  denote  purification;  as  when  it 
is  applied  to  John's  baptism  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  and  of  fire  as  prefigured  by  it.  In  proof  of  this 
compare  Matt.  iii.  5,  John  ii.  6.  and  iii.  23 — 26. 

That  the  baptism  of  John  is  the  purifying  alluded 
to  in  the  last  passages  here  cited  has  been  advocated  by 
some  writers  of  great  eminence,  particularly  Schleus- 
ner.  In  explaining  the  word  K<x9-<5t^i(r/>tof  he  says, 
"  Sense  3.  Baptism:  John  iii,  25.  -m^i  xot^oc^KTfxov.  Let  it 
be  remarked  the  inquiry  was,  whether  Christ  could 

the  night  and  in  or  near  the  camp.  Indeed,  that  she  baptized  by 
immersion  is  very  improbable,  no  less  from  the  circumstance  ac- 
companying the  fact,  than  from  the  usages  of  the  Jews.  Yide 
Lomieri  De  Vet.  Gent.  Syntag.  c.  16.  et  aliis. 


36 

baptize  by  his  oa\ii  authority,  and  wl^ther  the  baptism 
iilstituted  by  him  were  more  excellent  than  the  bap- 
tism of  John,  Comp.  v.  23.  and  26."*  And  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, at  the  expense  of  JRis^tm^n  views,  remarks  in  his 
note  on  the  same  passage  "  About  purification  -m^i 
y-ocS-oi^KT/xov:  that  is  as  appears  from  the  sequel  about 
baptisms  and  other  legal  ablutions." 

These  washings  or  baptisms  of  purification  were 
various,  and  often  performed  otherwise  than  by  im- 
mersion, as  will  be  manifest  by  comparing  the  sub- 
joined passages.  1  Kings  iii.  1 1.  John  ii.  6.  Luke  xi. 
38,  39.  and  by  recollecting  the  clear  expression  of 
the  history  of  oriental  usages,  so  obviously  in  favour  of 
this  idea.*  Some  passages  in  which  (docTrn^o)  occurs 
have  already  been  explained;  others  will  be  treated  in 
their  proper  place,  and  consequently  need  not  be  re- 
marked on  here. 

After  going  into  a  patient  and,  as  I  would  hope,  a  can- 
did examination  of  all  the  passages  in  the  Greek  scrip- 
tures where  this  word  is  to  be  found,  as  well  as  into 
the  use  of  words  which  are  often  employed  as  synoni- 
mous,  and  at  the  same  time  availing  myself  of  all  the 
lights  of  history  and  philological  reading  within  my 
power,  I  come  to  this  conclusion,  that  it  is  never  but 
once  in  the  New  Testament  used  in  its  primitive  sense 
to  tinge^  stain,  or  imbue,  that  it  never  occurs  in  its  se- 
condary sense,  to  dp,  or  plunge  all  over  in  water,  and 
that  when  it  is  introduced  by  the  inspired  writers  or 
their  Greek  translators  it  is  always  in  a  sacred  sense,- 
describing  either  the  external  application  of  water  in 
token  of  inward  purity,  or  the  shedding  down  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  upon  the  soul  in  order  to  its  regeneration 

*  Ko6^«g<(rjtto< — 3.  Baptism.  John  iii.  25.  Trfg*  KtiB-x^to-ftov.  Scil. 
An  Christus.  jute  suo  baptizare  possit,  et  an  baptismus  ab  eo  insti- 
tus,  preslantior  sit  Johannis  baplismo,  Coll.  v.  23  et  26.  Schleus- 
ner.  Lex.  Gr.  Lat.  in  N.  Test. 

*  See  this  subject  treated  more  at  large  in  my  Sermon  on 
Christian  Baptism,  2d.  Ed.  p.  57 — 63.— Proofs  and  Illustrations  No. 
J.  III.  IV.  V. 


and  sanctification.  It  is  pleasing  to  find  this  result  of 
ni}-  inquiries  supported  by  that  incomparable  biblical 
critic,  Schleusner,  who  thus  expounds  the  word  "  BAP- 
TIZE—  is.  Properly  to  immerse  and  dye^  to  dip  into 
-watery  "  In  this  sense,  indeed,  it  is  never  used  in 
the  New  Testament,  but  it  is  so  used  with  some  fre- 
quency in  Greek  authors." — •'  As  it  is  not unfrequent 
to  immerse  and  dip  something  in  order  to  wash  it; 
Sense  2.  the  word  signifies  to  purify,  to  M^ash  general- 
ly, to  cleanse  with  water.  Thus  it  is  used  in  the  New 
Testament,  Mark  vii.  4.  %ck,i  cctxo  otyo^cx^g  gav  |3«7rT<(^ovT(X« 
(in  quibusdam.  Cod.  '^xvrt^ovTai)  ovk  io-^-ioa-on,  "  and 
from  the  markets  they  do  not  eat,  unless  they  baptize^'' 
(in  some  copies  sprinkle) — that  is,  and  such  things 
as  have  been  bought  in  the  market  they  do  not  eat, 
unless  they  shall  have  been  first  washed  and  purified. 

Luke  xi.  38.    ot«    ou    tt^qtov   i^A-JV-via-^n    sr^-o    Tov    (X^jVou, 

"  that  Jesus  had  not  washed  himself  before  dinner." 

From  the  discussion  thus  made  it  must  appear,  I 
conceive,  that  Dr.  Campbell  had  never  thoroughly  ex- 
amined in  what  sense  this  word  is  used  in  the  sacred 
w-ritings;  and  consequently  when  he  asserts  that  "  /3a7r- 
Tiifgiv,  both  in  sacred  authors  and  in  classical,  signifies 
to  dip,  to  plunge,  to  immerse,  and  was  rendered  by  I'er- 
tullian,  the  oldest  of  the  Latin  Fathers,  by  tingere,  a 
word  used  for  dying  cloth,  which  was  by  immersion," 
there  is  really  no  truth  in  the  assei'tion.  The  word 
seldom,  and  perhaps  never,  signifies  to  dip  in  scripture. 
Tertullian,  indeed,  translates  it  by  tingere;  but  then 
this  word  does  not  mean  to  immerse  only,  for  that  Fa- 
ther, as  we  have  seen  in  the  quotation  made  above,  and 
as  will  abundantly  appear  in  the  proposed  Review, 
frequently  uses  the  word  to  describe  baptism  by 
sprinkling. 

Dr.  Campbell  is  not  less  palpably  mistaken  when  he 
declares  that  ^^tttw  and  ^a-Ttn^^ca  are  synonimous,  and 
that  they  are  the  words  which  are  used  by  the  Septu- 
agint^to  translate  the  corresponding  word  'jJD-    In 


their  primary  sense  to  thige,  to  stam,  to  imbue,  I  indeed 
believe  them  to  be  synonimous;  but  it  will  be  found, 
I  presume,  that  there  is  a  clearly  marked  di-stinction  as 
to  their  application  in  scripture.*  For  there  it  never 
happens,  one  or  two  instances  excepted,  that  ^xxnl^ui 
is  used  in  its  original  sense;  but  is  taken  uniformly  to 
express  some  religious  application  of  water  or  the  in- 
ternal benefits  represented  by  that  symbol:  whereas 
/BaTTTw  is  invariably  used  in  its  original  sense,  and  ne- 
\er  to  express  any  religious  washing  or  purification. 

If  Dr.  Campbell,  a  man  of  great  critical  acumen  and 
unquestionable  merit  as  a  philological  scholar,  was  thus 
palpably  mistaken  in  his  exposition  of  the  meaning  of 
these  Avords,  I  ask  whether  it  should  be  deemed  strange 
that  others  equally  distinguished  should  be  mistaken 
also;  and  whether  it  be  not  indispensable  that  \\^  should 
examine  for  ourselves,  and  not  take  upon  trust  the 
mere  dixit  of  any  man? 

In  explaining  this  word  lexicographers  are  not 
agreed  among  themselves,  and  this  being  the  case  I 
for  one  am  resolved  not  to  trust  them  as  infallible 
guides.  There  is  a  very  commonly  prevailing  fallacy 
on  this  subject,  namely,- that  those  critics  who  say  the 
words  in  controversy  mean  to  immerse  and  nothing 
else,  are  in  judgment  entirely  accordant  with  the  Bap- 
tist authors.  But  this  is  not  true:  all  these  critics,  to  a 
man,  believe  that  dipping  a  part  of  the  body  is  a  bap- 
tism: the  Baptist  writers,  on  the  contrary,  do  univer- 
sally contend  that  nothing  can  be  a  baptism  short  of 
dipping  the  whole  body  wider  water.  In  proof  of  this 
assertion  I  appeal  not  only  to  the  writings  of  both  par- 

*  That  T  have  correctly  stated  the  primary  meanins:^  of  the  word 
Bnvru  will  appear  by  consulting  some  of  the  ablest  critics  and  lex- 
icoj^raphers,  as  well  as  from  the  examples  above  collated.  The 
Lexicon  in  the  Antwei-p  Polyglot  renders  tiie  word  thus,  ti?ig-o,lavo, 
coloro^iminergo.  Trbmius,  lini^^o,  inrrgo.  Lex.  Or.  Lat.  Conslo- 
nini  tingo,  bvo,  coloro,  immergo.  I  have  not  allowed  mysrlf  to 
travel  out  of  the  limits  of  scripture  in  these  inquiries;  but 
had  I  done  so,  the  very  same  i-esulisin  fixing  the  sense  of  the  words 
would  have  taken  place. 


29 

ties,  bat  to  this  particular  fact,  that  in  expounding- 
Mark  vii.  4.  Whitby,  Campbell,  Parkhurst  and  others 
on  the  same  side,  say  that  the  baptism  there  spoken  of 
Avas  clipping  the  hands  only;  while  Dr.  Gill  and  all  the 
Baptist  authors  strenuously  insist  that  it  was  the  im- 
mersion  of  the  -whole  body.  After  all  the  parade  of  cri- 
ticism made  by  Baptists  on  this  question  then,  they 
and  the  critics  are  not  agi'eed,  but  directly  and  posi- 
tively opposed. 

This  general  remark,  also,  is  obviously  suggested 
by  the  detailed  view  which  has  just  i^cen  given  of  the 
scriptural  use  of  these  words;  that  if  Baptists  contend 
for  the  primary  sense  of  the  word  ^^ttt/^w,  to  dip  or  to 
plunge  is  not  that  meaning,  but  to  stam,  colour  or  dye: 
consequently  the  argument  taken  fi-om  the  original 
signification  cannot  answer  the  purpose  for  which  it 
is  employed. 

The  plea  of  primary  meaning,  therefore,  can  be  no 
longer  useful  to  the  Baptist  hypothesis;  yet  I  am  dis- 
posed to  think  there  is  some  truth  in  the  idea.  The 
fact  of  washing  persons  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity  is 
not  only  symbolical  of  moral  cleansing  by  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  alsoin  a  figurative  sense  refers  to 
the  original  \dit^.o^  staining  or  marking;  in  as  much  as 
they  who  receive  baptism,  the  initiating  or  designating 
rite  of  Christianity,  are  marked  out  with  a  new  tincture 
or  colour,  or  in  other  words,  take  a  wtw  impression 
or  character.  Such  is  the  allusion  Rev.  vii.  3.  and  xiv, 
1.  where  the  servarits  of  God  are  said  to  be  sealed  and 
to  have  his  name  ivritten  in  their  foreheads.  And  it 
was  in  this  view  that  the  Latin  Fathers  were  so  fond  of 
using  the  word  tingo  to  describe  baptism,  and  of  call- 
ing the  baptized  Tincti,  and  sometimes  still  more 
plainly  Sigillo  Christi  s?gnati,  *'  marked  with  the  seal 
of  Christ."  This  sense  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Robinson 
when  he  says,  John's  baptizing  persons  "conferred  a 
character,  a  moral  hue,  as  dyers  by  dipping  in  a  vat  set 
a  tincture  or  colour.    Hence  John  is  called,  bv  earlv 


40 

Latins,  Johannea  T'mctor^  the  exact  Latin  of  hx»f^ 
I  3«TT*r):<,  John  the  Baptist.'''  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  6- 
I  allow  the  interpretation  of  baptism  conferring  a  mo- 
ral hue;  but  I  deny,  and  I  am  supported  in  doing  so  by 
the  foregoing  induction,  that  dipping  is  at  all  necessary 
to  the  idea  of  staining  or  marking,  and  that  Johannes 
Tinctor  Is  the  exact  Latin  of  kit»v<r  I  3«t7rT«f-<r,  but  Jo- 
HAN'XES  BAPTiZATOR,  John  the  baptizer.  See  Park- 
hurst,  Campbell,  Scapula  and  Schleusner. 

The  learned  gentleman,  in  attempting,  p.  18.  to  con- 
vict me  of  inaccuracy,  says  that  Schrevelius  gives 
mer'^o  as  **  the  primar}-  sense  of  Sxtti^m.  This  is  in- 
correct, ffjr  the  rendering  of  Schrevelius  is  "  haptizo 
mer70,  lavo^^''^  thus  making  baptize  the  primary  sense 
of  the  word,  and  to  d-p  the  second  seTise.  The  authcw 
then  resorts  to  the  rendering  of  Parkhurst,  which  he 
states  thus:  *'  Sense  1st,  to  dip,  immerse,  or  plunge  in 
water,"  and  adds  that  in  his  second  and  third  sense  he 
retains  the  same  meaning.  Here  again  the  learned  gen- 
tleman fiiils  to  state  the  fact.  Dr.  Parkhurst's  exposi- 
tion of  the  meaning  cA  haptizo  is  as  follows; 

"'  \.  To  dip,  immerse,  rsr  plunge  in  water;  but  in  the 
New  Testament  it  occurs  xot  steictly  i-v  this 
SEXSE,  unless  so  far  as  this  is  included  in  sense  H. 
and  in.  below. 

II.  Bx-r-zi^'.uAi  Mid.  and  Pass,  to  wash  one's  self,  be 
vioshed,  wash,  i.  e.  the  hands  by  immersion  or  dipping 
in  water,  Mark  \-ii.  4.  &.C. 

HI.    To  baptize,  to  immerse  in,  or  wash  with 

WATER  IX  TOKEN  OF  PURIFICATION  FKOM  S.I-V 
AND   SPiniTlTAL    POL  LtTTIO  ?;."t 

From  Parkhurst's  own  words  it  appears  that  he  does 
not  think  immersion  necessarj-  to  baptism;  for  after 
giving  immerr;e  as  the  first  sense,  he  says  it  does  not 
occur  strictly  in  this  sense  in  the  Sew  Testament;  and 

•  Vi  !e  \jf  icon  M^na^le  Greco-Laiir.um  Schrevelii  4U».  Ed. 
C'jl.P^»^rtaon  \u  ^»nti.l» — Kn^li^h  •*  to  bafitize,  to  difi,  to  vtt'k" 
t  r.-frk  ar*d  Y^u^r.:\J.i.  Wr  the  X  T. 


41 

under  sense  third  he  positively  declares  that  it  signifies 
to  wash  -with  water.  But  under  sense  filth  he  gives  us 
his  idea  very  explicitly,  when  he  quotes  Stockius  with 
approbation,  as  suying  that  "  anciently  the  water  was 
copiously  poured  on  those  who  were  baptized,  or  they 
themselves  Avere  plunged  therein."  The  truth  then  is 
that  Parkhurst  decides  as  much  in  favour  of  baptism 
by  copious  pouring  as  of  baptism  by  immersion.  It  is 
thus  Mr.  Jones,  Mr.  Booth,  and  almost  every  Baptist 
writer  I  have  ever  seen,  abuses  lexicographers  and 
public  confidence. 

With  respect  to  the  second  branch  of  the  charge 
brought  against  us,  namely,  that  wo.  fault  the  common 
translation  of  the  scriptures^  it  is  easy  to  reply,  '*  Phy- 
sician, heal  thyself;"  for  does  not  Mr.  Jones,  do  not 
Baptist  writers  generally  contend,  that  the  common 
translation  of  3«7rT<(^w  in  the  New  Testament  is  errone- 
ous and  should  have  been  immerse^  and  that  sv  v<^otT<, 
Matt.  iii.  11.  is  improperly  translated  with  water ^  and 
should  have  been  in  water?  or  where  can  there  be 
shown  a  more  violent  attempt  to  put  down  any  trans- 
lation than  is  made  by  Robinson  and  others  in  refer- 
ence to  the  English  translation  of  Acts  xix.  4,  5.  in 
order  to  extort,  by  putting  the  passage  to  the  rack,  a 
verdict  in  favour  of  their  theory? 

But  to  advance  in  our  strictures,  it  is  really  amusing 
to  observe  the  learned  operations  of  the  gentleman  in 
his  criticisms  on  the  word  /3<x7rTi^a),  in  his  answer  to 
Mr.  Edwards.  He  marches  on  with  a  superb  step 
through  the  fair  scenes  of  classical  Greece,  penetrates 
the  vast  region  of  biblical  literature,  and  rounds  off  his 
erudite  career  with  High  Dutch,  Low  Dutch,  and 
Welsh  translations  of  the  New  Testament;  and  all  this 
to  bring  out  the  magnificent  result,  that  (iuTTTi^w  Higni* 
fies  to  dip  or  immerse.*  I  will  not  follow  the  gentle- 
man in  his  critical  excursions,  for  this  obvious  reason, 

*  See  Answer  to  Edwards,  p.  106 — 159. 


4^ 

that  the  plain  reader  for  whom  I  WTite  neither  knows 

nor  cares  any  thing  about  Homer's  verse,  or  High 
Dutch  and  Low  Dutch  translations;  and  is  alike  edified 
by  scraps  from  Aristotle  as  by  the  enchanting  sound  of 
Welsh  words.  Two  or  three  of  his  criticisms,  howe\er, 
which  bring  him  into  contact  with  certain  passages  of 
scripture  important  to  this  controversy,  shall  be  tran- 
siently noticed. 

Treatmg  of  Heb.  ix.  10.  which  speaks  of  "  divers 
washmgs,"  Gr.  different  baptisms,  he  observes  that  "  if 
the  word  xcus  rendered  immersions  it  would  make 
sense  and  exhibit  the  trutli:  for  this  is  the  meaning  of 
bathing  tlie  flesh,  the  body  or  himself.  I  find  this  pas- 
sage considered  by  that  great  man,  Grotius,  who  says 
on  this  passage,  "  Varias  lotiones  nominat,  quia  lotio 
alia  erat  sacerdotum.  £xod.  xxix.  4.  Alia  Levitarum, 
alia  Israelitarum  post  impuritatem  contractam."  p» 
118.  That  due  estimation  may  be  given  to  Mr.  Jones' 
learning  and  accuracy,  I  will  now  translate  the  passage 
as  it  stands  in  Grotius,  placing  the  original  in  the  mar- 
gin for  the  comparison  of  die  learned  reader.  "  He 
[the  apostle]  calls  them  '  various  Avashings,'  because 
there  was  a  distinct  washing  of  the  priests.  Exod.  xxix. 
4.  a  different  one  of  the  Levites,  Numb.  viii.  7.  and 
a  still  different  one  of  the  Israelites,  in  consequence  of 
contracting  certain  kinds  of  defilement."*  This  is  the 
comment  of  Grotius,  which  the  learned  gentleman  in- 
troduces to  corroborate  his  rendering  oi'  the  word  3*7r. 
T<rw:jc  by  immersions;  but  which,  alas  for  our  critic! 
speaks  the  very  language,  holds  forth  the  very  ideas 
which  we  all  wish  to  see  expressed,  namely,  that  the 
different  washings  of  the  apostle  denoted  the  different 
species  of  washing,  \\  nether  partial  or  entire,  practised 

»  Varias  lotiones  nominat,  quia  lotio  alia  erat  sacerdotum,  Exodi 
xxix.  4.  alia  Levitarum,  Num.  viii.  7.  alia  Israelitarum  post  impu- 
ritatem, aliquam  contractam.  Lex.  xv.  8,  16,  18,  27.  xvii.  15.  xxi:. 
6.  Numb.  xix.  19.  Annot.  Grotii  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  The  reader  will 
pexceite  Mr.  Jones  has  mutilated  this  passage* 


43 

among  the  Jews,  including  even  the  Levitical  purificpt- 
tion  by  sprinkling.  Let  the  reader  consult  the  texts 
here  referred  to  by  Grotius,  and  he  will  see  that  the 
commentator  meant  to  expound  the  words  iix(po^oig 
^ocTVTKTfAoiq  different  baptisms^  as  comprehending  all  the 
partial  washings,  sprinklings  and  immersions  prescrib- 
ed under  the  law  for  either  consecration  or  purifica- 
tion, if  we  are  to  credit  St.  Paul  and  his  expositor  Gro- 
tius. Thus,  then,  when  Moses  xvashed  Aaron  and  his 
S07iSy  which  was  evidently  a  partial  washing,  he  baptized 
them; — when  he  sprinkled  the  w^ater  of  purifying  upon 
the  Levites  he  baptized  them — a  doctrine  which  every 
Baptist  must  reject,  or  yield  the  peculiarities  of  his 
scheme  of  baptism. 

Mr.  Jones  farther  remarks,  **  as  far  as  my  observa- 
tion extends  the  learned  generally  understand  this  pas- 
sage of  divers  immersions."  p.  119.  Your  observation! 
yes  sir;  but  we  begin  to  suspect  that  to  be  extreme- 
ly limitted;  and  besides,  your  representations  of  the 
opinions  of  such  of  the  learned  as  you  attempt  to  quote 
are  so  aukward  and  mutilated  that  we  cannot  trust  your 
report  as  to  others.  The  truth  is,  learned  men,  with  a 
few  exceptions,  understand  it  otherwise,  and  consider 
it  as  comprehending  the  various  ablutions  of  the  Mo- 
saic ritual,  however  performed.* 

BaTTTii^ai  and  '^a.-jt-iis^aq^  as  used  in  Mark  vii.  4 — 8.  Mr. 
Jones  labours  to  prove  were  designed  to  express  that 
the  Jews  after  being  at  market  immersed  themselves 

*  Some  of  them  explain  it  thus:  "  Any  washing  commanded  by 
the  Mosaical  law,"  Hammond  in  loco — "  Any  kind  of  washing, 
whether  by  dipping  or  sprinkling,"  Owen  in  loco — Baptismus 
Grxcis  qucevis  est  lotio  sen  ablatio,  sive  immersione,  sive  assper- 
sione  qause  fiat.  "  Baptism  among  the  Greeks  is  any  washing  or 
ablution,  whether  made  by  immersion  or  the  sprinkling  of  water." 
David  Parens  in  loco — "  Various  sorts  of  washings  of  the  sacrifices, 
and  of  the  piiests,  and  of  the  people."  Guise — Omnibus  omnino 
purgationibus  Leviticus,  de  quibus  eiiam  locutus  est  Paulus,  Heb. 
vi.  2.  et  ix.  10. — The  Levitical  purifications  in  general  of  which 
Paul  speaks,  Heb.  vi.  2.  and  ix.  10.  Schleusner. 


4^ 

that  the  plain  reader  for  whom  I  write  neither  knows 
nor  cares  any  thing  about  Homer's  verse,  or  High 
Dutch  and  Low  Dutch  translations;  and  is  alike  edified 
by  scraps  from  Aristotle  as  by  the  enchanting  sound  of 
Welsh  words.  Two  or  three  of  his  criticisms,  however, 
which  bring  him  into  contact  with  certain  passages  of 
scripture  important  to  this  controversy,  shall  be  tran- 
siently noticed. 

Treatmg  of  Heb.  ix.  10.  which  speaks  of  "  divers 
washmgs,"  Gr.  different  baptisms,  he  observes  that  *'  if 
the  word  7uus  rendered  immersions  it  would  make 
sense  and  exhibit  the  truth:  for  this  is  the  meaning  qf 
bathing  the  flesh,  the  body  or  himself.  I  find  this  pas- 
sage  considered  by  that  great  man,  Grotius,  who  says 
on  this  passage,  "  Varias  lotiones  nominat,  quia  lotio 
alia  erat  sacerdotum.  Exod.  xxix.  4.  Alia  Levitarum, 
alia  Israelitarum  post  impuritatem  contractam."  p, 
118.  That  due  estimation  may  be  given  to  Mr.  Jones' 
learning  and  accuracy,  I  will  now  translate  the  passage 
as  it  stands  in  Grotius,  placing  the  original  in  the  mar- 
gin for  the  comparison  of  the  learned  reader.  "  He 
[the  apostle]  calls  them  '  various  washings,'  because 
there  was  a  distinct  washing  of  the  priests.  Exod.  xxix. 
4.  a  different  one  of  the  Levites,  Numb.  viii.  7.  and 
a  still  different  one  of  the  Israelites,  in  consequence  of 
contracting  certain  kinds  of  defilement."*  This  is  the 
comment  of  Grotius,  which  the  learned  gentleman  in- 
troduces to  corroborate  his  renderhig  of  the  word  /3a7r-  ^ 
TKrfxoig  by  immersions;  but  which,  alas  for  our  critic! 
speaks  the  very  language,  holds  forth  the  very  ideas 
which  we  all  wish  to  see  expressed,  namely,  that  the 
different  washings  of  the  apostle  denoted  the  different 
species  of  washing,  \^  hether  partial  or  entire,  practised 

*  Varias  lotiones  nominat,  quia  lotio  alia  erat  sacerdotum,  Exodi. 
xxix.  4.  alia  Levitarum,  Num.  viii.  7.  alia  Israelitarum  post  impu- 
ritatem, aliquam  contractam.  Lev.  xv.  8,  16,  18,  27.  xvii.  15.  xxii. 
6.  Numb.  xix.  19.  Annot.  Grotii  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  The  reader  will 
perceiye  Mr.  Jones  has  mutilated  this  passage 


43 

among  the  Jews,  including  even  the  Levitical  purifica- 
tion by  sprinkling.  Let  the  reader  consult  the  texts 
here  referred  to  by  Grotius,  and  he  will  see  that  the 
commentator  meant  to  expound  the  words  Stx^po^oig 
pKATrria-fjt^oig  different  baptisms,  as  comprehending  all  the 
partial  washings,  sprinklings  and  immersions  prescrib- 
ed  under  the  law  for  either  consecration  or  purifica- 
tion, if  we  are  to  credit  St.  Paul  and  his  expositor  Gro- 
tius. Thus,  then,  when  Moses  washed  Aaron  and  his 
sons,  which  was  evidently  a  partial  washing,  he  baptized 
them; — when  he  sprinkled  the  water  of  purifying  upon 
the  Levites  he  baptized  the?n — a  doctrine  which  every 
Baptist  must  reject,  or  yield  the  peculiarities  of  his 
scheme  of  baptism. 

Mr.  Jones  farther  remarks,  *'  as  far  as  my  observa- 
tion extends  the  learned  generally  understand  this  pas- 
sage of  divers  immersions."  p.  119.  Your  observation! 
yes  sir;  but  we  begin  to  suspect  that  to  be  extreme- 
ly limitted;  and  besides,  your  representations  of  the 
opinions  of  such  of  the  learned  as  you  attempt  to  quote 
are  so  aukward  and  mutilated  that  we  cannot  trust  your 
report  as  to  others.  The  truth  is,  learned  men,  with  a 
few  exceptions,  understand  it  otherwise,  and  consider 
it  as  comprehending  the  various  ablutions  of  the  Mo- 
saic ritual,  however  performed.* 

BfitTTTj^oi  and  3<x7rT<(r,u(3f,  as  used  in  Mark  vii.  4 — 8.  Mr. 
Jones  labours  to  prove  were  designed  to  express  that 
the  Jews  after  being  at  market  immersed  themselves 

*  Some  of  them  explain  it  thus:  "  Any  washing  commanded  by 
the  Mosaical  law,"  Hammond  in  loco — "  Any  kind  of  washing, 
whether  by  dipping  or  sprinkling,"  Owen  in  loco — Baptismus 
Grxcis  quoevis  est  lotio  sen  ablutio,  sive  immersione,  sive  assper- 
sione  qause  fiat.  "  Baptism  among  the  Greeks  is  any  washing  or 
ablution,  whether  made  by  immersion  or  the  sprinkling  of  water." 
David  Pareus  in  loco — "  Various  sorts  of  washings  of  the  sacrifices, 
and  of  the  priests,  and  of  the  people."  Guise — Omnibus  omnino 
purgationibus  Leviticus,  de  quibus  etiam  locutus  est  Paulus,  Heb. 
vi.  2.  et  ix.  10. — The  Levitical  purifications  in  general  of  which 
Paul  speaks,  Heb.  vi.  2.  and  ix,  10,  Schleusner. 


44 

before  dinner^  and  that  the  baptism  of  cups,  pots,  bra- 
zen vessels  and  tables  was  their  immersioninwater.  This 
position  he  supports  by  a  lengthy  quotation  from  Dr. 
Gill's  exposition  of  the  passage.  But  whence  did  Dr. 
Gill  derive  his  matter  of  proof  in  support  of  the  fact? 
Why,  from  that  very  kind  of  evidence  which  he  himself 
rejects  in  another  case  as  utterly  irrelevant.  He  and  the 
other  Baptist  writers  treat  the  Jewish  writers  very  much 
as  they  do  the  Christian  Fathers.  When  Jewish  prose- 
lyte baptism  for  adults  and  infants  is  the  question,  these 
writers  are  very  equivocal  authority— they  are  not  to 
he  trusted:  but  shift  the  question — let  the  inquiry  be 
respecting  the  baptism  of  pharisees  before  dmner,  and 
then  their  testimony  becomes  omnipotent  in  evincing 
that  such  baptisms  were  immersions  of  the  whole  bo- 
by  in  Avater. 

That  the  Jews  frequently  immersed  themselves  I  am 
free  to  own,  but  that  Dr.  Gill  has  given  the  whole  truth 
in  evidence  I  am  fearless  to  deny;  because  I  do  so  upon 
authority  as  respectable,  to  say  the  least,  as  the  Baptist 
doctor.  Dr.  Hammond's  judicious  note  on  this  passage, 
in  which  there  is  a  quotation  from  Maimonides,  one  of 
the  Jewish  writers  cited  by  Dr.  Gill,  makes  the  partial- 
ity of  this  commentator  entirely  visible.  Speaking  of 
the  manner  of  such  washings  he  observes  from  Pocock 
that  it  was  "  a  rule  of  the  rabbins,  set  down  by  Mai- 
monides in  these  Avords,  Tr.  Beracoth,  c.  6.  "  A  man 
shall  wash  his  hands  in  the  morning  so  that  it  shall  suf- 
fice him  for  the  whole  day,  and  he  shall  not  need  to 
wash  his  hands  as  oft  as  he  eats;  which  holds  in  case 
he  do  not  avert  his  mind  any  other  way  (that  is,  go 
abroad,  or  meddle  with  business,  go  to  market,  &c.) 
but  if  he  do  so,  he  is  bound  to  wash  his  hands  as  oft 
as  there  is  need  of  washing,  that  is  before  he  eat  or 
pray.  And  so  that  may  well  be  the  meaning  of  the  place, 
that  the  pharisees  eat  no  nieat  before  they  have  wash- 
ed their  hands;  and  in  case  after  the  morning  washing 
they  go  to  the  market,  or  fall  to  any  worldly  business, 


45 

wherein  there  may  be  very  easily  some  legal  pollution, 
they  must  wash  their  hands  again  before  they  dine."* 
In  this  interpretation  almost  every  critic  and  commen- 
tator of  eminence  concurs — Pool,  Whitby,  Guise, 
Campbell,  Parkhurst,  Scott  and  Schleusner,  with  many 
others,  all  agree  that  the  baptism  of  which  Mark  speaks 
in  this  place  is  washing  of  hands;  though  two  or  three 
of  this  number  suppose  that  such  vvashingwas  performed 
by  immersing  the  hands  in  water.  But  this  with  Dr.  Gill 
and  Baptist  writers  would  not  be  admitted  as  a  baptism 
of  the  person.  I  ought  to  ask  the  learned  gentleman's  par- 
don for  not  placing  among  the  abovementioned  critics 
the  name  of  Grotius,  whom  he  calls,  and  properly 
too,  "  a  great  man."  Grotius  not  only  sustains  the  fore- 
going exposition  of  Mark  vii.  4.  but  speaking  of  the 
parallel  text,  Luke.  xi.  38.  "  marvelled  that  Ae  had  not 
Tvashed,^^  Gr.  had  not  been  baptized  "  before  dinner," 
says  that  e/BotTrrio-St;,  the  word  there  used,  is  of  the  same 
signification  as  ^vi^^oiro  rocg  %g<^otc,  from  which  remark 
it  is  very  evident  he  considered  the  washing  of  the 
hands  by  pouring  water  upon  them  to  be  truly  and 
properly  a  baptism;  and  this  is  unquestionably  the  true 
meaning  of  these  passages.  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
speaking  of  the  custom  of  washing  the  hands  before 
prayer,  says  that  the  Jews  pushed  this  practice  to  so 
scrupulous  a  length  as  not  unfrequently  to  he  baptized 
in  bed;\  and  thus  makes  it  manifest  that  in  the  time  of 
this  Father,  washing  the  hands  was  considered  a  bap- 
tism of  the  person,  and  that  such  baptism  was  most 
probably  effected  by  affusion.  As  to  the  mode  of  wash- 
ing hands  in  ancient  times,  it  was  performed  by  pour- 
ing water  upon  them,  as  Elisha  "  poured  water  on  the 
hands  of  Elijah."  2  Kings  iii.  11.  The  same  custom 
is  mentioned  by  Homer,  one  of  the  oldest  writers  in  the 
world  except  such  as  were  inspired,  Odys.  4.  216.  and 
also  by  Virgil,  who  lived  but  a  short  period  before  the 

*  Hammond  in  Loc. 


46- 

time  of  St.  Mark.  En.  1.  705.  And  modem  travellers, 
as  Hanway,  Pitts,  and  others,  mention  that  such  is  still 
the  universal  practice  in  the  east. 

The  learned  gentleman  blames  Mr.  Edwards  for 
writing  the  original  word  for  tables  ;cAtv*<,  but  impro- 
perly, for  this  is  the  very  word  used  in  St.  Mark, 
though  in  a  different  case,  which  is  the  usual,  indeed 
the  most  proper  method  of  introducing  the  original 
word  when  there  is  no  express  quotation;  and  having 
done  this  he  tells  us  that  "  Dr.  Gill  considers  the  word 
xAivov,  and  says,  the  Syriac,  Persic  and  Ethiopic  ver- 
sions favour  the  idea  that  the  couches  on  which  they 
lay  when  eating  might  be  meant."  p.  122.  After  tell- 
ing Mr.  Jones  there  is  no  such  word  as  jcAjvov  in  the 
Greek  language,  I  will  say  I  have  no  objection  to  the 
idea  that  the  kAivoh  of  this  passage  were  tht.couches  or 
benches  on  which  the  Jews  reclined  when  they  took 
their  meals.  But  when  it  is  asserted  that  these  couches 
were  dipped  in  order  to  be  washed,  I  demur  to  the  asser- 
tion and  to  the  facts  adduced  in  proof  of  it.  Dr.  Gillresorts 
to  the  very  authorities  which  he  himself  deems  ques- 
tionable as  to  proselyte  baptism,  namely  the  Jewish 
"VATiters,  to  bear  him  out  in  the  immersion  of  beds. 
There  is,  however,  testimony  more  ancient  for  saying 
that  under  the  law  the  Jews  did  not  always  immerse 
even  vessels  which  could  have  been  more  conveniently 
done.  The  Septuagint  translation  of  the  pentateuch, 
which  was  made  two  hundred  and  eighty-five  years 
before  Christ,  employs  the  word  nipto,  which  signifies 
to  wash  by  pouring,  to  represent  the  washing  of  a 

vessel.  Lev.  XV.   12.    x,**   a-Kt\jQ?   IwAevov  vitpyja-irai  v^XTi, 

"  Every  wooden  vessel  shall  be  rinsed  with  water." 
So  that  it  is  very  certain  that  even  the  smallest  article 
here  enumerated  must  have  been  washed  without 
dipping. 

The  triclinea  on  which  the  ancients  reclined  at  din- 
ner were  wooden  frames,  sometimes  without  cover  and 
at  others  covered  with  mattrasses,  and  were  large 


47 

enough  to  hold  three  persons.  That  these  articles  wefe 
lustrated  or  religiously  washed  by  dipping  is  far  from 
probable,  notwithstanding  the  examples  adduced  by  Dr. 
Gill,  which  are  of  toolate  adate,  and  which,  if  it  should  be 
admitted  that  they  were  put  into  water  and  their  feet 
dipped  in  the  mud,  might  have  been  washed  by  pour- 
ing, as  was  the  chariot  of  Ahab  at  the  pool  of  Sama- 
ria, 1  Kings  xxii,  38.  (LXX.  A-mvi^ocy  to  dii^oi.  iiri  ryjv 
it^yjvyiv  5:(XjW«^g/«f)  "and  one  washed  the  chariot  in  the  pool 
of  Samaria."  That  such  articles  were  washed  in  another 
way  we  have  ancient  and  positive  attestation  by  Ho- 
mer in  his  Odysse,  b.  189. 

"  The  seats  with  purple  clothe  in  order  due, 

^nd  lei  the  abstersive  sponge  the  board  renew.'" 

The  poet  Martial  also,  who  flourished  but  a  short  time 
after  Mark  wrote  his  gospel,  testifies  very  explicitly  to 
the  same  fact. 

Hac  tibi  sorte  datur  tergendis  s/iongia  mensis. 

These  authorities  show  that  the  ancient  and  more  com- 
mon method  of  washing  tables  was  with  sponges  fil- 
led with  water.  It  deserves  special  notice  that  after  all 
Dr.  Gill's  zeal  to  prove  immersion  here  by  quotations 
from  the  Jewish  writers,  he  is  compelled  to  introduce  a 
passage  from  the  rule  regulating  such  washings  as  given 
ty  Maimonides,  which  shows  clearly  enough  that  the 
baptism  of  vessels  was  not  always  in  the  mode  of  im- 
mersion. It  is  as  follows;  "  And  none  are  obliged  to 
this  immersion  but  molten  vessels  bought  of  Gentiles; 
1)ut  if  he  borrows  of  Gentiles,  or  a  Gentile  leaves  in 
pawn  molten  vessels  (made  of  cast  brass  or  iron)  he 
washes,  or  boils  them,  or  heats  in  the  fire,  but  need 
not  immerse  them;  and  so  if  he  buys  vessels  of  w^ood 
or  vessels  of  stone,  he  washes  or  boils  them,  but  need 
not  dip  them;  and  so  earthen  vessels  need  not  be 
immersed.*  From  this  citation,  as  well  as  from  the 

*  See  Dr.  Gill's  Expos,  on  the  N.  T.  in  Loco, 


48 

Mosaic  ritual,  it  appears  that  in  cleansing  vessels  it 
was  not  deemed  necessary  to  immerse  any  of  them  but 
l^razen  vessels,  and  not  even  them  in  all  cases.  Now 
It  is  not  certain  that  the  word  ^i^uv  signifies  *'  brazen 
vessels,"  indeed  it  is  most  probable  it  does  not:  for 
Schleusner  says  that  the  |£5-»i?  was  "  a  wooden  vessel 
of  any  kind  destined  for  common  use."*  These  wooden 
vessels  were  of  the  description  which  even  Dr.  Gill 
himself  allows  were  not  to  be  immersed.  So  that  from 
very  respectable  authority  there  is  reason  to  believe 
that  the  baptism  of  vessels  here  mentioned  by  St.  Mark 
was  performed  in  the  mode  of  affusion  or  sprinkling,^ 
not  of  dipping. 

With  much  parade  of  criticism  Mr.  Jones  attempts 
to  expose  Mr.  EdM^ards  and  myself  for  the  translations 
we  have  made  of  £v,  g*?,  and  certain  other  Greek  pre- 
positions, as  they  occur  in  the  texts  which  describe 
the  baptisms  administered  by  John  and  Philip.  See 
Rev.  p.  16.  Ans.  to  Edwards  p.  128. 

Speaking  of  Matt.  3.  6.  where  the  phrase  £v  to* 
la^SoiVY)  occurs,  and  which  our  translators  render  "  in 
Jordan,'*^  and  referring  to  Mr.  Edwards  as  having  said 
that  sv  signifies  not  only  in  but  also  7iigh^  near^  aty  by^ 
&c.  he  remarks,  with  an  accuracy  which  few  will  wish 
to  copy,  "  This  obliged  me  to  examine  my  Lexicons: 
— none  of  them  favoured  Peter'' s  (the  courtly  style  in 
which  this  author  speaks  of  Mr.  Edwards)  assertion" 
— "  none  of  them  said  it  meant  7zz|^/i,  near,  (it,  by,  &c." 
The  reader  will  remember  that  one  of  the  learned  gen- 
tleman's Lexicons  is  Parkhurst's  Greek  and  English 
Lexicon  for  the  New  Testament,  as  he  not  unfrequent- 
ly  quotes  the  work;  and  he  will  be  astonished  to  learn 
that  Dr.  Parkhurst  does  in  that  very  Lexicon  give  ev 
the  meaning  for  which  we  contend,  namely,  "  by,  nigh 
to,  and  moreover  refers,  in  illustration  of  this  meaning, 

*  Vas  omnis  generis  ligneum,  cotidianis  usibus  destinatitn,  &c. 
Lex  Gr.  Lat.  in  N.  Test,  in  |sf»;< 


49 

to  John  xix.  41.  "  Now  in  the  place  where  he  was 
crucified  there  was  a  garden."*  In  this  text  the  com- 
mon translation  of  the  words  ev  tw  raircti  docs  not  ex- 
press the  fact,  which  was  that  the  garden  was  near  to 
the  place  of  crucifixion;  it  should  have  been,  "  Now 
nigh  to  the  place,  &c." 

Schleusner,  a  man  no  less  famous  for  the  herculean 
force  of  his  genius  than  for  the  extent  of  his  erudition, 
expounds  the  word  as  wc  do,  thus,  "  7)  nigh  to,  at, 
iiear,''^  and  refers  to  the  following  very  appropriate  ex- 
amples of  the  propriety  of  such  rendering,  f  Matt.  xxiv. 
15.  "  When  ye  therefore  shall  see  the  abomination  of 
desolation — stand  (sv  tottw  dyiea)  in  the  holy  place; 
then  let  them  that  be  in  Judea  flee  to  the  mountains." 
This  warning  was  given  to  instruct  the  Cliristians  to 
flee  as  soon  as  the  first  evident  mdications  of  danger 
should  occur  in  Jerusalem;  of  which  one  should  be 
"  the  abomination  of  desolation  standing  near  the  holy 
place:"  for  fact  demonstrates  that  the  abomi7iatio7i  of 
desolation,  namely,  the  Roman  army  (Comp.  Luke 
xxi.  iO,  21.)  did  not  stand  in  the  holy  place,  but  on  ^ 
the  outside  of  the  city,  when  the  Christians  were  direct- 
ed to  make  their  escape.  Luke  xiii.  4. — "  The  tower 
(ev  T«  SjAwfxp)  in  Siloam  fell;" — the  translation  should 
have  been  the  tower  at  Siloam,  for  none  will  pretend 
that  the  tower  stood  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.  John  x.  23. 
■*'  Jesus  walked  (sv  tw  h^u)  in  the  temple,  in  Solomon's 
porch;" — the  rendering  should  have  been  iiear  the 
temple,  because  every  one  knows  Solomon's  porch  was 
not  in  the  temple  but  near  to  it.  These  were  Schleus- 
ner's  examples — I  will  add  a  few  others.  John  i.  ^.8. 
"  These  things  were  done  (ev)  in  Bethabara  beyond 
Jordan,  where  John  was  baptizing" — Mr.  Jones  will 
not  believe,  I  presume,  that  John  baptized  in  the  house 
or  village  called  Bethabara  when  Jordan  was  near  itj, 

*  See  Parkhurst's  Gr.  Eng.  Lex.  on  the  word.  Sense  VI. 

t  Vide  Gr.  Lat.  I. ex.  in  N.  Te^t.  in  tV— Schleusner  7)  Juxta,  at^ 

nrope,  ^t: 

G 


50 

all  parties,  therefore,  must  conspire  to  translate  it, 
"  These  things  were  clone  at  or  nigh  to  Bethabara,"  &c. 
John  X.  20.  "  Who  leaned  on  Jesus'  bosom  (sv  tea  Su. 
TTvw)  at  Slipper.^''  Heb.  ix.  4.  "  The  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant overlaid  round  about  with  ^old,  (sv  vj)  wherein  (it 
shouldbe«?^/2^6  which)was  the  golden  pot." — 1  Thess. 
ii.  19.  "  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  [iv]  at  his  commg." 
iieb.  xii.  2.  (gv)  "  At  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
God." 

Judges  xviii.  12.  "  And  they  went  up  and  pitched 
(LXX.  iv  Kflt^<*9«3t^j^)  in  Kerjath-jearim  in  Judah; 
Avherefore  they  called  the  name  of  the  place  Mahanneh- 
dan  unto  this  day:  behold  it  is  behind  Kirjath-jearim,^'^ 
Here  the  scite  of  the  encampment,  which  was  behind 
Kirjath-jearim,  was  iiigh  to,  not  in  it.  1  Kings  ii.  34. 
"  He  w^as  buried  (LXX.  iv  tw  o»jcw  oi,\jrov)  in  his  owfi 
house  in  the  wilderness."  The  grave  was  7iear  to,  or 
at,  not  in  the  house.  Josh.  x.  10.  "  And  slew  them 
Avith  great  slaughter  (LXX.  £v  rccjiocuv)  at  Gibeon.''^ 
Josh.  iii.  8.  (Comp.  v.  13,  15.)  "  When  ye  are  come 
$0  the  brink  of  the  water  ye  shall  stand  still  (LXX.  «v 
TW  lo^tJavvj)  in  Jordan.''''  Here  coming  to  the  bi'ink  of  the 
iimter  is  called  standing  sv  t«  lo^^oiv*}  (the  very  words 
used  in  Matthew  and  Mark)  and  cannot  mean  any 
thing  else  than  at  Jordan,  or  bi/  the  edge  of  its  waters. 
This  example  is  decisive,  and  in  conjunction  with  pre- 
ceding ones  settles  the  question  as  to  the  proper  ren- 
dering of  the  passages  in  dispute.  When  Mr,  Ed- 
wards and  myself,  therefore,  translate  Matt.  iii.  6. 
(gv  TW  lo^ioivr,)  at  Jordan,  Mark  i.  5.  (gv  tw  lo^^Tjtv)} 
7roT<jt/xa))  at  the  river  Jordan,  and  John  iii.  23.  (gv  osivwv) 
at  Enon,  we  are  supported  by  the  best,  nay  by  unan- 
swerable authorities.  Indeed  there  is  scarcely  any  thing 
more  common  in  the  geographical  descriptions  of  the 
Greek  scriptures  than  this  very  use  of  the  preposi- 
tion iv.-* 

*  Instances  no  less  convincing  are  these  that  follow:  Josh.  v.  13- 
Ruth  iii.  7.   1  Kings  ii.  27,  34.  Luke  xxiv.  12.  Rom.  viii.  34, 


51 

Mr.  Jones  will  not  allow  Mr.  Edwards  and  myself 
to  say  that  the  preposition  £<$•,  which  commonly  signi- 
fies into,  will  al$o  bear  to  be  rendered  towards,  near  to, 
at,  and  the  lilicc;  and  asserts  peremptorily  that  "  the 
word  is  used  about  one  hundred  and  nine  times  in  the 
Evangelist  Matthew;  and  in  none  of  these  places  will 
it  bear  to  be  translated,  towards,  near,  &c."  Ibid  130. 
That  the  reader  may  have  another  instance  of  this  wri- 
ter's ^^e/Z^z/  and  accuracy  in  reporting  facts,  let  him  ob- 
serve how  St.  Matthew  uses  the  word  in  the  following 
passages.  Matt.  ii.  21.  *'  And  went  (e*?)  towards  the 
land  of  Israel." — viii.  18,  "  Gave  commandment 
to  depart  (ng)  to  the  other  side" — xiv.  22.  "  Go  be- 
fore him  (ug)  unto  the  other  shore" — xxviii.  1.  "  As 
it  began  to  dawn  (ug)  toxvards  the  first  day  of  the 
week."  See  Matt.  XV.  24.  xxii.  4.  xxiv.  14. 

Other  sacred  writers  use  it  in  the  same  manner. 
Mark  v.  1.  "  Came  over  (e*?)  zmto  the  other  side." 
Luke  ;viii.  26.  "  Arrived  (ng)  at  the  country  of  the 
Gadarenes." — xxiv.  50.  "  He  led  them  out  as  far  as 
(iig)  to  Bethany."  John  iv.  5.  "  Then  cometh  he 
(e«f)  to  a  city."  Christ  had  not  yet  entered  the  city. 
V.  6,  8.  xi.  31,  32,  38.  "  She  fell  down  (ag)  at  his 
feet — She  goeth  (sk)  imto  the  grave — Jesus  cometh 
{ug)  to  the  grave." — xxi*.  4,  9.  "  Jesus  stood  (ng) 
an,  (i.  e.  7tigh  to),  the  shore — As  soon  as  they  were 
come  (iig)  to  land."  Acts  xxviii.  14.  "  And  so  we 
went  (?!')  toward  Rome."  John  xviii.  28.  "  Then 
led  they  Jesus  (?<?)  iwJo  the  hall  of  judgment — They 
themselves  went  not  into  the  judgment  hall." 

See  alsoJohn  xiii.  1.  Phil.  iii.  11.  Eph.  iv.  13.  1  Pet. 
iv.  9. 

The  Septuagint  also  furnishes  a  great  variety  of 
such  examples.  Jud.  iv.  13.  "  From  Harosheth  of  the 
Gentiles  (ug)  to  the  river  Kishon." — 2  Sam.  v.  6. 
"  And  the  king  and  his  men  went  (ug)  to  Jerusalem," 
that  is  in  order  to  attack  and  take  it  before  they  could 
enter  into  it.  xii.  29.  "  David  went  {itg)  to  Rafebah  and 


52 

'fought  against  and  took  it."  1  Kings  i.  38.  "  And 
caused  Solomon  to  ride  upon  king  David's  mule  and 
brought  him  (f/?)  to  Gihon."  No  body  will  be  weak 
enougSi  to  think  that  Solomon  on  the  occasion  of  his 
inauguration  and  thus  mounted  was  put  i7ito  the  vSpring 
Gihon.  Joshua  iii.  15.  The  feet  of  the  priests  [i^ocd^nTccv 
iU  fA-'c^og  Tou  \iSc(,ro<;  tov  Io^Sccvqv)  were  dipped bi  the  brim 
of  the  watery  Here  the  feet  of  the  priests  wti'Q  dipped 
into  the  brim  of  the  water,  and  as  yet  appears  from 
verse  13.  the  soles- of  their  feet  only  were  wet  with  the 
water.  When  it  is  said,  therefore,  that  their  feet  were 
dipped  into  the  edge  of  the  xvater  it  is  plain  we  are  to 
understand  from  the  connexion,  the  priests  came  so 
close  to  the  water  as  that  the  soles  alone  were  wet  by 
the  waters  oozing  under  them. 

Nothing  scarcely  is  more  common  in  .the  Greek 
scriptures  than  this  use  of  £<?,  and  consequently  the  fact 
shows  that  the  texts  in  controversy  will  receive  a  very 
just  and  appropriate  rendering  when  they  are  translated 
in  the  sense  contended  for  by  us.  Mark.  i.  9.  "  And 
was  baptized  of  John  (g<?  tov  lo^<Jotv>jv)  at  Jordan."  Acts 
viii.  38.  "  And  they  both  descended,  (?/?  tw  ■o^w^)  to  the 
water  both  Philip  and  the-eunuch,  andhe  baptized  him." 
But  because itis  said, verse  36.  "They  came(£7rj'Tj  t^m^) 
to  a  certain  water ^^''  Mr.  Jones  remarks,  "you  see  here 
that  Philip  and  the  eunuch  came  to  (sTr*)  a  certain  water, 
but  this  word  did  not  bring  them  into  it."  p.  131.  Very 
true,  nor  does  this  point  hi  the  description  even  bring 
them  within  reach  of  the  water,  because  they  were  yet  in 
the  chariot,  and  most  probably  on  the  bank  of  the  water, 
what  ever  it  was,  whether  spring,  or  pit,  or  brook; 
and  consequently  they  had  still  to  descend  to  the 
water.  What  is  more  common  with  bothancient  andmo- 
dern  writers  than  to  make  mention  of  coming  to  and 
even  upon  water^  when  nothing  more  is  meant  than 
approaching  near  to  it  or  coming  upon  its  bank;  and 
this  is  precisely  the  idea  oonveyed  in  this  passage — 
They  came  near  to  the  water  but  had  yet  to  descend 


»3 

to  it.  Thus  Jud.  vii.  1.  "  Pitched  (LXX,  in)  beside 
the  wellofHarod."  Acts  iii.  10.  '^  Sat  for  alms  (stt*)  at 
the  beautiful  gate."  Johnxxi.  1.  "  Jesus  showed  himself 
{t7ri)at  the  sea  of  Tiberius."  See  also  John  vi.  16,  21. 

Mr.  Jones  makes  a  feeble  eftbrt  to  prove  that  the 
preposition  cctto  signifies  out  of  in  Mark  i.  9.  "  And 
straitway  coming  out  of  the  water;"  but  in  doing  so  he 
violates  the  grand  argument  of  Baptists  in  favour  of 
immersion,  namely,  that  we  are  to  expound  the  words 
according  to  their  primary  meaning.  It  is  not  for  me 
to  say  whether  the  rule  be  a  good  or  a  bad  one;  it  be- 
longs to  the  Baptists,  and  with  them  should  be  decisive. 
I  have  only  to  say,  then,  that  from  is  the  primary  mean- 
ing of  <*7ro,and  translate  the  text  inquestionaccordingly, 
and  straitway  coming  {oiTro)J}-o?n  the  water."*  My  op- 
ponents are  compelled  to  receive  this  translation,  and 
in  doing  so  to  yield  also  the  rendering  we  contend  for 
in  reference  to  the  other  prepositions;  for  if  arro  be  ren- 
dered ^/ro7;2,  then  €x,  in  the  parallel  passages  must  mean 
the  same  thing;  and  «*?  and  sjc,  as  conjoined  with  them, 
in  the  same  description,  cannot  express  more  than  at 
or  to. 

In  reference  to  £k  the  learned  gentleman  remarks, 
''  Parkhurst  gives  one  rule  which  will  determine  the 
dispute:  he  says,  **  governing  a  genitive,  it  denotes  mo- 
tion from  a  place,  out  of"*  ibid  136.  Dr.  Parkhurst  says 
this:  "  Ex  1,  governing  a  genitive  1.  It  denotes  motion 
from  a  place,  out  of  from^  Mat.  ii.  15.  viii.  28.  xxviii. 

2.  Mark  i.  29.  et  al."  This  is  but  another  instance  of 
our  author's  great  care  in  quoting,  as  he  leaves  out 

*  Every  Lexicographer  of  eminence  gives  frojn  as  the  first 
meaning  of  ^^r*;  thus  Parkhurst  "Atto  governing  a  genitive  I. From, 
see  Matt.  i.  17,24.  iii.  7.  13.  viii.  1,  11.  Mark  vii.  4.  Acts  xvi. 
33."  See  also  Schleusner,  Constantine,  Lex.  app.  Antwerp.  Poly- 
glot, &c. 

Thus,  too,  the  vi^ord  is  rendered.  Acts  xiii.  13,  John  xxi.  8.  xiii. 

3.  Luke  iv.  1.  xvi.  21.   xxiv.   2,  9.   Mark   vii.   28.   Matt,  xxviii. 
8,  Acts  ix.  8.  and  in  many  other  places. 


64>       - 

Jrom,  which  Parkhurst  has  given  as  a  pi-imary  mean- 
ing,  along  with  out  of;  both,  however,  denoting  motion 
from  a  place.  Confining  the  gentleman  to  his  own  rule, 
which  requires  him  to  receive  the  primary  meaning, 
I  have  translated  Acts  viii.  39.  in  conformity  to  it, 
*'  and  when  they  had  ascended  from  the  water." 

But  it  will  be  expected  that  I  should  say  something 
about  Enon.  Concernmg  this  place  the  learned  Ziud  ac- 
curate Mr.  Jones  observes,  "  Mr.  Robinson  says,  Enon 
was  a  large  fountain  called  the  Dove's  Eye.  And  to 
corroborate  his  sentiments  he  quotes  the  Syriac,  Persic, 
Arabic  and  iEthiopic  versions,  which  all  render  it  a 
fountain."  ibid.  139.  It  is  truly  an  unfortunate  circum- 
stance for  our  author  that  Mr.  Robinson  says  no  such 
thing;  for  he  seems  entirely  at  a  loss  to  determine 
whether  Enon  was  a  natural  spring,  an  artificial  reservoir, 
or  a  cavernous  temple  of  the  sun.  But  Mr.  Robinson 
shall  sp^ak  for  himself. 

"  Salim  was  at  least  fifty  miles  north,  up  the  river 
Jordan,  from  the  place  where  John  had  begun  to  bap- 
tize. iEnon,  near  it,  was  either  a  natural  spring,  an  arti- 
ficial reservoir,  or  a  cavernous  temple  of  the  sun,  pre- 
pared by  the  Canaaniites,  the  ancient  idolatrous  inhabi- 
tants of  the  land.  The  eastern  versions,  that  is  the 
Syriac,  Ethiopic,  Persic,  and  Arabic,  of  the  gospel 
of  John,  as  well  as  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldean  Ain-yon 
or  Gnain-yon,  suggest  these  opnions,  and  it  isdifiicult 
to  say  which  is  the  precise  meaning  of  the  Evangelist's 
word  iEnon;  and  it  is  not  certain  whether  the  plain 
meaning  be,  John  was  baptizing  at  the  Dove-spring 
near  Salim,  or  John  M^as  baptizing  at  the  Sun-fountain 
near  Salim."*  Whatever  we  are  to  think  of  Mr.  Ro- 
binson's  attempt  to  understand  the  Evangelist,  we  must 
at  least  admire  his  candour  in  yielding  the  point  as  to 
the  meaning  of  en  ainon  which  he  translates,  "  at  the 
Dove-spring  or  at  the  Sun-fountain." 

*  Robinson's  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  15, 


55 

From  the  various  instances  which  I  have  given  of 
Mr.  Jones' ya/y^  steps ^  as  an  author,  let  the  reader  ask 
himself  whether  such  a  man  ought  to  be  trusted. 

But  to  proceed,  the  much  -water  of  this  passage  is  a 
circumstance  descriptive  of  the  natural  advantages  of 
the  place,  and  not  the  reason  why  John  selected  that 
for  the  purpose  of  baptizing.  On  this  account  it  took 
the  appellation  Ainon,  says  Schleusner,  because  W)f 
no  less  than  ]^jr  denotes  figuratively  a  fountain.  John 
was  baptizing  at  Enon  near  Salim,  so  denominated 
from  its  ttoaaoc  vSocrct,^  much  water^  or  from  its  being 
well  watered.  That  John  did  not  select  Enon  on  ac- 
count of  the  size  or  depth  of  its  waters  is  evident  from 
this  circumstance,  that  had  he  been  anxious  to  get  deep 
water  for  immersion  his  purpose  could  have  been  an- 
swered much  better  at  Jordan,  which  was  distant  but 
a  little  way  from  Enon.* 

Mr.  Jones  seems  quite  fretted  at  our  calling  circumci- 
sion the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and  thinks  that  Rom.  iv. 
11."  He  7'eceived  the  sign  of  c'lrcumc'islon^  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  heijig  uncir- 
cumcised,''''  is  not  sufficient  authority  for  speaking  after 
this  manner.  Let.  p.  22.  And  what  if  it  is  not?  it  would 
not  therefore  follow  that  we  have  no  such  authority. 
This  text,  however,  does  prove  incontestibly  that  cir- 
cumcision was,  not  what  Mr.  Jones  dares  to  call  it,  a 
mark  of"  national  distinction,''^  but,  the  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  Abraham'' s  justifying  faith.  And  this, 
let  me  say,  implies  no  less  than  that  circumcision  was 
the  seal  of  the  covenant.  The  faith  of  this  patriarch  had 
an  object,  and  that  object  was  none  other  than  God's 

^AVa^'^nAcnon.  Nornenindeclinabileurbis, sitae  prop.  Jordanera 
in  fiiiibus  tribus  Manasse  ubi  ea  tribui  Issachar  est  tiniiima  juxta 
Salim  septein  miliaribus  a  scythiopoli  distantis.  Hie  bapt.zavit 
Johannes,  Job.  iii.  23.  quod  ibi  multce  erant  aquae  unde  etiam 
nomen  suum  accepit  J|  r>'  at  \y  metaphorice  tbntem  notat,  &c. 
Schleusner,  "  Indeed  the  name  does  imply  the  same  :'.s  a  place 
of  springs."  Dr.  Well's  Hist.  Geog.  of  the  Old  and  New  Test. 
Vol.  ?.  p.   162.     . 


5'6 

Covenant  or  promise  of  mercy  through  a  crucified  Re- 
deemer; none  other  than  the  all  meritorious  ransom— 
the  all  sufficient  righteousness  of  the  Son  of 
God;  for  nothing  else  ever  justified  one  of  the  fallen 
sons  of  Adam.  Now  the  sign  of  circumcision  was  the 
seal  of  this  very  ?-ighteous?iess.,  which  is  really  the 
simie  thing  as  saying  it  is  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  in 
as  much  as  the  justifying  righteousness  apprehended 
by  Abraham's  faith  cannot  be  detached  from  the  gra- 
cious covenant  made  with  the  patriarch,  and  so  ex- 
plicitly referred  to,  nay  quoted  by  St.  Paul,  in  this  very 
chapter.*  So  that  this  text  fully  supports  us  in  calling 
circumcision  the  seal  of  the  cor\^enant,  whatever  Mr. 
Jones  may  think  of  it,  and  puts  down  the  strange  dis- 
tinction which  that  gentleman  takes,  with  respect  to  cir- 
cumcision's being  not  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
Abraham's  faith,  but  the  sign  of  national  distinction, 
to  his  posterity.  For  how,  I  ask,  could  that  rite  be  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  Abraham's  faith,  and  yet  be- 
come, by  a  single  transformation,  a  mark  of  political 
discrimination  to  his  seed?  where  did  he  get  the  strange 
figment  of  a  politico- spiritual  rite?  He  that  can  di'eam 
thus,  must  be  far  gone  in  a  certain  species  of  mental 
aberration  which  I  do  not  like  to  name. 

Tribus  anticyris  caput  insanahile. 

The  gentleman,  however,  is  compelled  to  allow  that 
circumcision  "  is  called  a  token  of  the  covenant."  p.  23. 
Yes  sir,  it  is  so  called.  Gen.  xvii,  11.  and  means  the 
same  thing  as  seal  ox  rite  of  confirmation,  to  the  cove- 
nant of  Jehovah.  It  is  thus  that  Dr.  Clarke  expounds 
the  word  "  m^^  7  leoth  for  a  sign  of  spiritual  things:  for 
<the  circumcision  made  in  the  flesh  was  designed  to 
signify  the  purification  of  the  heart  from  all  unright- 
eousness, as  God  particularly  showed  in  the  law  itself. 
See  Deut.  x.  16.  See  also  Rom.  ii.  25—29.  Coloss. 

*  Let  tl;e  reader  compare  Gen.  xii.  and  xvii.  with  Rom.  iv. 
and  GaK  iii..  See  also  iny  Sermon  (2nd  edition)  p.  15 — 21. 


57 

ii'.  11.  And  it  was  a  seal  o/"that  righteousness^  or  jus- 
tification, that  comes  by  faith,  Rom.  iv.  11.  That  some 
of  the  Jews  had  a  just  notion  of  its  spiritual  intention, 
is  plain  from  many  passages  in  the  Chaidee  paraphra- 
ses, and  in  the  Jewish  writers.  I  borrow  one  passage 
from  the  book  Zohar,  quoted  by  Ainsworth:  '  At  what 
time  a  man  is  sealed  with  this  holy  seal  (of  circumci- 
sion) thenceforth  he  seeth  the  holy  blessed  God  properly, 
and  the  holy  soul  is  united  to  him.  If  he  be  not  wor- 
thy, and  keepeth  not  this  sign,  what  is  written?  By  the 
breath  of  God  they  perish;  (Job  iiii.  9.)  because  this 
seal  of  the  holy  blessed  God  was  not  kept.  But  if  he  be 
worthy,  and  keep  it,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  separated 
from  him.'  " 

"  Your  calling  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper,  seal- 
ing ordinances,  is  only  priestcraft,  to  deceive  your 
hearers  and  in  the  issue  to  increase  your  salaries."  p. 
23.  Mr.  Jones,  it  seems,  is  a  discerner  of  spirits  and 
is  able  to  report  the  very  state  of  men's  souls.  AU 
who  call,  all  who  ever  did  call,  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper  sealing  ordinances,  are  and  have  been,  it  would 
seem,  without  consciences.  Other  men  may  err  and  still 
be  honest.  But  we,  like  our  fathers,  have  been  intention- 
ally wrong,  having  no  other  object  than  to  deceive  the 
people  and  put  money  Into  our  pockets.  Such  deceivers, 
according  to  this  gentleman's  very  charitable  judgment, 
must  be  deeply  criminal,  and  can  have  no  milder  fate 
than  the  damnation  of  hell.  Thus  w^,  thus  our  father Sy 
of  whom  many  shed  their  blood  in  attestation  of  truth, 
are  proscribed  from  the  judgment  of  charity,  and  con- 
signed to  infamy  and  ruin. 

But  pause,  rash  mortal,  and  listen  to  the  appalling 
sound  of  Heaven's  thunder.  "  Who  art  thou  that 
judgest  another  man's  servant?  To  his  own  master  he 
standeth  orfalleth.  Why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?- 
or  why  dost  thou  set  at  nought  thy  brother?  For  we 
shall  all  stand  befoi-e  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ. 
Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged.  For  with  what  judg- 


58 

m^t  ye  judge,  ye'shall  be  judged;  and  with  what  mea- 
sure ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again.  He 
sshall  have  judgment  without  mercy  that  hath  shwved 
no  mercy." 

I  tremble  to  re-echo  the  thunders  with  which  Heaven 
guards  his  awful  prerogative,  and  pray  that  it  may  ne- 
ver be  meted  into  your  bosom  as  you  have  measured 
judgment  to  us. 

Allow  me  only  to  add,  that  the  charge  of  increasing 
salary  is  a  stale  slander.  We  hear  it  from  the  mouths 
of  accusing  sectjiries;  we  hear  it  from  the  mouths  of 
infidels:  all  that  can  be  borne;  but  when  we  hear  it 
from  the  lips  of  those  we  would  embrace  as  brethren 
in  Christ,  it  is  then  we  feel  that  reproach  has  a  sting! 

If  salary  be  our  object  we  succeed  badly.  A  mere 
competency  is  all  that  any  of  our  clergy  can  boast; 
but  in  the  western  country  we,  miserable  men,  who 
are  stigmatized  for  money  preaching,  have,  with  few 
exceptions,  like  Paul  of  Tarsus,  to  lahmir  working  with 
our  hands,  in  order  to  gain  a  support  for  ourselves  and 
families — nay  more,  in  preaching  the  gospel  and  in 
supporting  the  truth  we  have  to  make  many  sacrifices 
and  not  unfrequently  suffer  want:  Yet  after  all  we  are 
to  be  held  up  to  infamy  and  execration,  by  the  tongues 
and  pens,  not  of  infidels  and  blasphemers  only,  but  by 
those  who  are  in  profession  the  preachers  of  a  heavenly 
charity,  which  "  thinketh  no  evil,"  and  is  opposed  to 
"  all  bitterness  and  wrath  and  anger  and  clamour  and 
evil  speaking." 

But  the  stern  unfeeling  bosom  of  this  ghostly  accu- 
ser, is  not  satiated  with  a  sentence  of  condemnation; 
mockery  is  added  to  calumny  and  proscription.  He 
iisks;  "  Can  you  suppose  by  your  watery  hocus-pocus 
you  put  a  cJiild  into  a  better  state  than  Adam  left  it 
in?"  p.  23.  It  has  always  been  a  maxim  with  the  wise 
and  good,  never  to  speak  with  levity  or  jeering  of 
sacred  things.  Even  a  He  athen  poet  could  inculcate 
4nd  observe  it  in  his  conduct  towards  false  di^'initiesr 


49 

"  Hence  my  mouth, 
This  speech  pvesumptuoas  hence!  Detested  wisdoiw! 
To  wag  the  tongue  in  arrogant  reviling 
Against  the  gods!  'Tis  very  madness  sure, 
Or  strikes  a  chord  in  unison  \vith  madness, 
To  brawl  out  boasts,  vainglorious,  out  of  time.* 

Merciful  Heavens!  and  do  we  hear  an  aged  Christian 
minister  call  the  solemn  consecration  of  an  infant  to 
God,  by  washing  it  with  water  in  the  awful  name  of  the 
sacred  Trinity — a  rite  which  thousands  of  Christ's  fol- 
lowers deem  most  sacred,  and  attend  upon  it  widi  a 
profound  and  melting  devotion,  a  watery  hocus-pocus! 
What  profane  indecorum!  What  unfeeling  irreverent 
insult! 

But  truce  to  remonstrance — we  place  this  piece  of 
wanton  reviling  on  the  same  pillory  with  unnumbered 
other  harsh,  unseemly  and  even  vulgar  things  which 
disgrace  the  pages  of  this  mistaken  old  man! 

As  to  the  question  of  benefit  here  so  indecorously 
proposed,  I  will  pledge  myself  to  answer  it  when  he 
shall  have  answered  the  following,  "  Canyon  suppose 
that  your  plunging  a  person  all  over  in  a  pond  or  river 
puts  him  in  a  better  state  than  that  in  which  Adam  or 
even  Christ  left  him?" 

I  now  take  my  leave  of  that  volume  of  angry  jargon, 
with  which  this  ill-judging  writer  has  affronted  the 
public  and  especially  Paedobaptist  Christians.  Even 
candid  Baptists  must  blush  for  a  production  which  not 
only  falls  below  the  character  of 

Rari  nantes  in  gurgite  vasto, 

but  is  fraught  with  mistakes,  misrepresentations,  vul- 
garities and  humiliating  conceits.  If  the  Baptist  church 
has  that  share  of  learning,  good  sense  and  piety  which  I 
believe  it  has,  it  must  feel  itself  humbled  by  the  rude, 
unlearned,  and,  may  I  not  €ay,  unckristian  defence  set 
up  by  this  wTiter. 

*  Pindar,  translated  by  Mahby, 


60 

Such  advocates  do  credit  to  no  cause,  and,  indeed, 
are  alike  the  reproach  of  truth  and  reUgion.  With  our 
Baptist  brethren  I  am  far  from  invoking  a  controversy; 
I  wish  none,  and  cannot  but  hope  none  will  take  place. 
In  justifying  our  creed  as  to  baptism,  I  have  done  no 
more  than  what  is  common  among  themselves,  said 
freely  and  openly  all  I  could  in  its  defence  and  for  its 
promotion.  The  exercise  of  this  liberty  is  no  infrac- 
tion of  the  law  of  charity,  and  ought  not  to  operate  pre- 
judice in  any  breast.  Why  may  w^e  not  contend,  and 
yet  love  one  another?- — Where  there  has  been  a  recipro- 
cation of  assault  and  self-defence  on  both  sides,  let 
there  be  also  a  reciprocation  of  charity  and  kind  offi- 
ces. If  controversy  must  prevail,  may  we  be  enabled 
to  obey  that  divine  precept,  "  Put  on  as  the  elect  of 
God,  holy  and  beloved,  bowels  of  mercies,,  kindness, 
humbleness  of  mind,  meekness,  long  suffering,  for- 
bearing one  another,  and  forgiving  one  another,  if  an}^ 
man  have  a  quarrel  against  any:  even  as  Christ  forgave 
you,  so  also  do  ye.  And  above  all  these  things,  put  on 
charity  which  is  the  bond  of  perfectness;  and  let  the 
peace  of  God  rule  in  your  hearts,  to  the  which  also  je 
are  called  in  one  body  and  be  ye  thankful." 


A  REVIEW 


MR.  ROBINSON'S  HISTORY  OF  BAPTISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Sect.  1 .  IN  the  work  which  I  have  just  examined,  Mr. 
Robinson's  History  of  Baptism  receives  very  honour- 
able mention.  This  circumstance  brings  me  fairly  into 
contact  with  a  work  of  a  higiier  order  indeed,  but  which, 
nevertheless,  is  entitled  to  little  credit  in  respect  of 
either  historical  verity,  or  solidity  of  argument.  Mr. 
Robinson  was  a  man  of  no  inconsiderable  genius,  and 
of  some  erudition.  He  was  in  the  first  instance  a  Me- 
thodist preacher;  but  having  renounced  his  former 
baptism  and  being  rebaptized  in  the  mode  of  immersion, 
he  attached  himself  as  a  preacher  to  a  Baptist  congre- 
gation in  Cambridge,  and  continued  to  exercise  his 
talents  among  them  with  no  small  eclat  until  the  close 
of  his  life.  At  some  period  subsequent  to  his  connec- 
tion with  the  Baptists,  he  became  a  proselyte  to  theSoci- 
nian  hypothesis,  and,  in  the  issue,  a  virulent  opposer  o t 
the  evangelical  system,  especially  that  view  of  it  which 
is  usua,lly  denominated  Calvinism.  In  his  preface  to  the 
History  of  Baptism,  he  tells  the  reader  that  he  has  not 
dipped  his  pen  in  gall,  nor  written  for  any  party  exclu- 
sively, and  yet  it  is  extremely  evident  that  the  strongest 
prejudices  mingle  with  the  details,  and  vent  thcir.seives 
in  fierce  invectives  and  unjust  accusations  against 
every  person  or  sect  he  has  occasion  to  mention  on 
the  Trinitarian  or  Calvinistic  side;  whi^e,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  spirit  of  singular  tenderness  and  compi  • 


62 

ccncy  seems  to  be  infused  into  his  style  whenever  he 
comes  to  treat  of  persons  or  sects  holding  opinions 
analogous  to  his  own.  When  I  heard  Socinian  Baptists 
and  Shakers  eulogize  the  writings  of  this  man,  I  was 
not  surprised;  it  was  what  congruity  of  theory  taught 
me  to  lock  for:  but  I  cannot  conceal  the  astonishment  I 
felt  when  I  saw  his  History  of  Baptism  warmly  ap- 
plauded and  recommended  to  public  notice  by  Cal- 
vinistic  Baptists.  I  was  not  then,  nor  am  I  yet,  able  to 
account  for  the  fact,  without  supposing  that  adult  im- 
mersion was  \vith  them  a  matter  of  much  greater  mo- 
ment than  the  doctrines  of  grace.  For  allowing  that 
Mr.  Robinson's  History  is  well  calculated  to  make  Bap- 
tists, it  must  be  admitted  by  every  person  that  has  read 
it,  to  be  equally  well  calculated  to  make  them  disci- 
ples to  the  doctrines  of  Socinus.  With  respect  to 
the  precise  degree  of  merit  to  be  attached  to  this  his- 
tory, on  the  single  subject  which  it  professes  to  treat, 
I  will,  before  I  go  further,  make  this  general  remark, 
that  there  is  scarcely  a  single  argument  or  fact  in- 
troduced into  it  against  infant  baptism,  which  had  not 
been  amply  refuted  by  Mr.  Wall  near  a  century  before 
it  was  written,  and  yet  Mr.  Robinson  does  not  take 
the  least  notice  of  the  inductions  of  fact  and  conse- 
quent reasonings  of  that  erudite  historian. 

The  resurrection  of  old  cavils  is  really  no  very 
honourable  business,  though  adorned  with  talents  still 
more  splendid  than  those  of  our  author;  and  even  the 
introduction  of  new  matter,  although  accompanied  with 
striking  displays  of  invention,  demands  no  praise,  when 
the  whole  labour  has  been  accomplished  in  violation  of 
evidence  glaringly  manifested  in  every  document  of  the 
Christian  history.  How  far  Mr.  Robinson  may  be 
chargeable  with  the  high  crimes  of  the  suggestio  falsi 
and  the  siippressio  ven  is  certainly  no  inquiry  of  mine; 
but  it  comes  fairly  within  my  province  as  a  reviewer,  to 
detect  his  misrepresentations  of  fact,  correct  his  dis- 
torted views  of  Christian  antiquity,  put  aside  his  false 


63 

inductions,  aiid  exhibit  in  their  own  simple  unadorned 
lustre  the  resistless  lights  of  ecclesiastical  history.  In  a 
work  so  voluminous,  vaiying,  and  miscellaneous,  as  the 
History  of  Baptism  is,  it  will  not  be  expected  that  I 
should  give  every  matter  occurring  in  it  evenapassing  re- 
view. Many  things  in  that  work  have  no  bearing  on  the 
points  in  question,  directly  or  indirectly;  many  more, 
whether  true  or  false,  must  appear  utterly  irrelative  when 
their  connexion  with  what  is  erroneous  is  dissolved  by  the 
presentation  of  fact;  and  various  others,  w  hich  claim  no 
higher  importance  than  what  is  merely  anecdotal  and 
fanciful,  form  but  the  interludes  of  the  controversial 
drama;  or  at  most  the  mere  episodes  of  a  polemic  in- 
duction, and  consequently  are  very  properly  passed 
over  without  notice.  Subtract  all  these,  and  you  will 
see  the  massy  quarto  production  before  us  reduced  to 
one  of  quite  a  moderate  size;  and  such  is  the  volume  I 
would  attempt  to  review^  when  exonerated  from  e^^ery 
thing  extraneous,  conjectural,  and  amusing.  I  shall 
then,  in  conducting  this  review,  confine  myself  chiefly 
to  such  details  and  reasonings  of  the  historian  as  re- 
spect the  two  great  points  in  controversy,  namely,  the 
baptism  of  infants,  and  the  mode  of  baptism  by  pouring 
or  sprinkling. 

On  the  first  of  these  points,  Mr.  Robinson  begins 
with  attempting  to  obviate  the  inference  Avhich  Pasdo- 
baptists  make  in  favour  of  their  practice  from  the  testi- 
mony of  TertuUian.  To  do  this,  he  endeavours  to  show, 
by  citations  from  Bp.  Victor,  that  the  word  pa)'vidi 
(which  is  the  one  used  by  this  Father  to  describe  in- 
fants) signifies  such  children  as  could  speak  and  were 
called  lectores  infantuli,  infant  readers.  Indeed  he  is 
happy  enough  to  find  a  line  in  Victor's  History  of  the 
Vandal  persecution,  which,  he  thinks,  would  lead  the 
reader  to  conjecture  that  these  children  were  seven 
years  old.  To  this  I  might  answer,  that  the  Fathers 
frequently  use  the  word  to  denote  children  who  can- 
not speak,  and  like  our  learned  historian  swell  my  book 


64 

Avith  many  appropriate  examples  of  the  fact:  as  for  in. 
stance,  Jerome,  in  quoting  the  decree  of  Cyprian  con- 
cerning the  baptism  of  a  child  just  born,  makes  use  of 
the  word  pm-vulu?n.*  But  there  is  an  easier  and  much  , 
more  certain  way  of  repeUing  Mr.  Robinson's  induc- 
tion, namely,  by  quoting  the  whole  passage  as  it  stands 
in  TertuUian,  and  inquiring  whether  it  does  not  contain 
internal  evidence  that  these  parviui  were  mere  infants; 
and  to  this  I  now  address  myself.  After  reasoning  on 
the  propriety  of  delaying  baptism  when  sought  for  by 
extemporary  and  unprepared  converts,  except  in  cases 
of  pressing  danger,  TertuUian  observes;  *'  Itaque  pro 
cuj usque  personse  conditione  ac  dispositione,  etiam 
cetate  cunctatio  baptismi  utilior  est:  prsecipue  tamen 
circa  parvulos.  Quid  enim  necesse  est,  si  non  tam  ne- 
cesse,  sponsores  etiam  periculo  ingeri?  qui  et  ipsi 
per  mortalitatem  destituere  promissiones  suas  possunt, 
et  proventu  malcc  indolis  falii.  Ait  quidem  Dominus, 
Noiite  illos  prohibere  ad  me  venire.  Veniant  ergo 
dum  adolescunt,  veniant  dum  discunt,  dum  quo  veni- 
ant docentur,  iiant  Christiani  quum  Christum  nosse 
potuerint.  Quid  festinat  innocens  ajtas  ad  remissionem 
peccatorum?  Cautius  agetur  in  secularibus,  ut  cui 
substantia  terrena  non  creditur,  divina  credatur.  No- 
rint  petere  salutem,  ut  petenti  dedisse  videaris.  Non 
minore  de  causa  innupti  quoque  procrastmandi,  in 
quibus  tentatio  prasparata  est  tam  virginibus  per  ma- 
turitatem,  quam  viduis  per  vagationem,  donee  aut 
nubant,  aut  contincntise  corroborentur.  Si  qui  pondus 
mtelligant  baptismi,  magis  timebunt  consecutionem 
quum  diiationem:  fides  integra  secura  est  de  salute. f 

*  Opera  Hieron,  Tom.  9.  p,  164. 

t  Teriul.  De  Baplisnio  Liber  cap.  18.  The  t-diuon  from  which 
I  have  made  my  quotations  is  one  that  was  published  A.  D.  cia. 
ic.xcvii  at  Frauktbrt,  and  corrected  from  the  edition  of  Pame- 
lius  by  manusc;-ip  s  and  other  copies,  and  illustrated  w'wh  thr 
notes  of  Junius  and  the  annotations  of  Rhenaiii^ 


65 

"  Therefore  the  delay  of  baptism  is  the  more  exjx:^ 
dient  as  it  respects  the  condition  and  disposition  as 
well  as  the  age  of  every  person  to  be  baptized;  and 
this  moreover  holds  especially  in  reference  to  little 
ones.  For  what  occasion  is  there,  except  in  cases  of 
urgent  necessity,  that  the  sponsors  be  brought  into 
danger?  who  are  alike  liable,  through  death,  to  fail  in 
accomplishing  their  promises,  and  to  be  decei^  ed  by 
the  evolution  of  some  evil  disposition.  Our  Lord  in- 
deed says,  Do  not  hinder  them  from  coming  to  me. 
But  then  let  them  come  when  they  grow  up:  let  them 
come  when  they  are  informed  or  understand^  i.  e.  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  ordinance;  when  they  are  in- 
structed for  what  end  they  should  come: — let  them  be 
made  Cliristians  when  they  shall  have  become  able  to 
know  Christ.  Why  does  this  innocent  age  hasten  to 
the  remission  of  sins,  i.  e.  to  baptism?  Men  act  with 
more  caution  in  secular  concerns;  than  that  di\'ine 
interests  should  be  confided  to  any  one  to  whom  it  is 
considered  improper  to  allow  the  disposal  of  earthly 
property.  Let  them  know  how  to  seek  this  salvation 
that  you  may  appear  to  have  given  it  to  one  that  ask- 
eth.  For  a  reason  no  less  weighty  unmarried  persons 
should  also  have  their  baptism  delayed  on  account  of 
their  being  exposed  to  temptation;  as  well  virgins  by 
reason  of  their  maturity,  as  widow's  by  their  wander- 
ing mode  of  life;  until  they  either  marry  or  arriAC  at  a 
confirmed  continence.  They  who  understand  the  great 
weight  of  baptism  will  dread  rather  tne  too  hasty  re- 
ception than  the  delay  of  it;  and  a  genuine  faith  is  se- 
cure of  salvation."* 

*  Ml'.  Robinson  has  cited  the  above  passage  and  given  the  world 
a  translation  of  it;  but  both  the  one  and  the  other  carries  the  impres- 
sion of  partiality  and  unfairness.  In  the  second  sentence  of  the 
quotation,  and  after  the  words  (juid  enim  necesse  est,  he  has  left 
out  the  clause,  Si  -non  lam  necesse  est;  which  is  a  passage  very- 
material  to  the  right  understanding  of  the  rest  of  tlie  citation.  I 
know  the  copy  of  Tertullian  by  Rigaltus  wants  this  clause;  but 
that  author  has  been  convicted  of  being  partial  to  the  Baptist  side 


66 

l/nlike  our  Baptist  brethren  Tertullian  does  not  deny- 
that  Matt.  xix.  14.  "  Suffer  Uttle  children,  and  forbid 
them  not,  to  come  unto  me,"  relates  to  the  baptism  of 
infants  and  their  visible  dedication  to  Christ;  for  he 
quotes  it  in  express  reference  to  that  very  subject. 
Neither  does  he  contend,  like  them,  that  figurative,  not 
real,  infants  were  intended  by  our  Lord  on  that  occa- 
iiion,  who  called  humble  converts  by  that  name  and 
description  to  designate  the  qualities  of  their  mind.  No^. 
no;  these  were  refinements  for  which  that  age  was 
not  prepared.  He  not  only  speaks  of  them  as  really 
being  little  children^  but  he  gives  such  distinctive 
characters  of  them  as  show  incontrovertibly  that 
they  must  have  been  mere  infants.  They  were  such 
little  ones  as  were  incapable  of  learning  any  thing — 
as  could  not  be  taught  why  they  should,  come  to 
Christ — as  were  incapable  of  knowing  Christ — as 
were  unable  to  ask  for  salvation,  and  consequently 
could  have  been  none  other  than  mere  infants,who  as  yet 
were  utterly  incapacitated  for  learning  or  understand- 
ing the  Christian  religion,  and  very  unlike  the  lectores 
itfantiili  or  septennial  children  of  Mr.  Robinson 
and  Bp.  Victor.  The  passage  in  its  connexion  also 
makes  it  evident  that  Tertullian  was  not  here  op- 
posing the  baptism  of  the  children  of  professing 
parents;  for  to  that,  it  is  manifest  from  all  his  writings, 
he  did  not  object;  but  the  baptism  of  such  infants  as 
were  destitute  of  parents  or  natural  guardians,  and 
required  sponsors  who  should  undertake  for  their  reli- 
gious education.  He  distinguishes  three  gi'ounds  on 

of  the  controversy  by  Mr.  Wall.  All  the  older  editions  of  Tertul- 
lian contain  the  clause;  the  one  before  me  has  it,  and  especially 
that  of  Pamelius,  the  very  one  Avhich  Mr.  Robinson  rtfcrs  to  in 
his  history,  has  it;  and  yet  our  historian  ventures  to  leave  it  out, 
and  say  not  a  word  about  the  omission.  In  his  translation  also, 
he  has,  in  several  instances,  perverted  the  sense  of  the  original 
and  given  a  false  interpretation.  These  facts  seem  to  induce  a 
belief  that  our  historian  is  not  to  be  relied  on  as  authority.  See 
Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  pt.  1.  ch.  4.  ynd  pt.  2.  ch.  11. 


^7 

which,  if  satisfaction  could  not  be  obtained,  he  con- 
ceived the  delay  of  baptism  would  be  ad\iseabl.e, 
namely,  the  condition,  disposition  and  age  of  the  person. 
Condition  was  expressive  of  privilege,  covenant  relation 
and  security  of  religious  instruction,  and  belonged 
exclusively  to  infant  children  and  domestics  in  Chris- 
tian families;  disposition  marked  the  faith  and  religious 
habits  of  the  person  to  be  baptized,  and  could  be 
possessed  by  adults  only;  and  age  was  such  a  period 
of  life  as  promised  perseverance  in  religion,  and  re- 
quired in  the  candidate  to  be  not  only  adult  but  of 
sober  years  and  settled  habits.^  Now  where  there  was 
a  total  want  of  all  those  prerequisites,  it  was  Tertullian*s 
opinion,  there  was  the  clearest  possible  indication  fo.r 
the  delay  of  baptism;  and  this,  says  he,  holds  especial- 
ly towards  little  ones,  i.  e.  the  infants  of  strangers  or 
deceased  persons;  which  infants  were  entirely  destitute 
of  all  the  above  grounds  of  qualification,  having  neither 
condition,  disposition  nor  age.  That  he  was  speaking  of 
the  children  of  poor  pagans,  or  such  other  infant  or- 
phans as  were  destitute  of  natural  guardians,  appears 
from  the  circumstance  of  their  having  sponsors,  who 
were  not  then,  as  they  became  afterwards,  merely 
nominal,  but  r^-a/ undertakers  for  unprotected  children, 
whose  office  it  was  to  watch  over  their  morals  and  edu- 
cation, and  also  from  what  he  observes  in  the  same 
chapter  concerning  the  temptations  peculiar  to  persons 
of  this  class,  particularly  to  exposed  virgins  and  wan- 
dering xvidows,  for  whom  he  thought  baptism  unsafe 
till  they  had  either  married  or  had  attained  to  the 
gift  of  continency.  Tertullian,  therefore,  was  not  oppo- 
sing  the  baptism  of  infants  born  in  the  church,  but 
those  of  strangers  whose  instruction  and  morality  could 
have  no  adequate  guarantee,  and  whose  salvation,  «s 
he  conceived,  would  be  put  to  great  hazard  by  a  pre- 
cipitate and  premature  baptism.   It  was   the  avowetl 

•  Vitie  Notas  F.  R.  Jnnu  ad  Terfull.  Ds  Haptismn.-rr  1*8/. 


68 

Opinion  of  this  Father,  that  as  in  baptism  all  past  sin 
was  washed  away,  and  as  that  rite  could  be  received 
but  once  in  any  person's  life,  there  could  be  no  con- 
ceivable remedy  for  sins  committed  after  baptism; 
and  consequently  that  such  persons  as  should  sin  after 
baptism  would  expose  themselves  to  the  utmost  dan- 
ger of  eternal  damnation.*  On  this  principle,  and  none 
other,  it  was  that  he  opposed  the  baptism  of  iiifants  of 
the  forementioned  class  and  description,  with  respect 
to  whom  it  was  apprehended  that  the  prospect  of  life 
and  salvation  might  be  jeopardized,  if  not  destroyed. 
But  on  this  very  principle  he  unequivocally  admits  the 
baptism  of  the  infants  in  question,  when  he  says,"  What 
necessity  is  there,  EXCEPT  in  very  urgent  cases, 
that  the  sponsors  be  brought  into  danger?"  Where  there 
was  imminent  danger  of  death  he  allows  they  ought 
t&  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sin  (pristinas  caeci- 
tatis)  and  the  birth  of  the  soul  to  God. 

That  the  view  which  I  have  here  given  of  Tertullian's 
opinion  concerning  the  baptism  of  children  is  strictly 
just,  will  farther  appear  from  his  exposition  of  1  Cor. 
Adi.  14.  which  I  will  proceed  to  lay  before  the  reader, 
after  advertising  him,  it  was  the  decided  judgment 
of  this  Father,  that  in  the  article  of  baptism  the  soul 
was  regenerated  to  God;  one  or  two  instances  of  this 
kind  will  suffice.  Thus  in  his  treatise  on  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  body,  he  says,  "  Why  dost  thou,  O  soul, 
contemn  the  body?  None  is  so  near  to  thee  whom  thou 
shouldest  love  next  to  thy  God;  non^  more  thy  fellow 

*  Foclix  sacramentuni  aqwx.  nostrx,  quia  ablulis  delictis  pris- 
tiujc  cxcitatis,  in  vitam  xternan  liberarnur — Sed  nos  pisciculi 
secundum  (x,^t»  nostrum  Jesum  Christum  in  aqua  nascemur.  Ner 
aliter  qiuuii  in  aqua  permanendo  salvi  sumus — Semel  ergo  lava- 
criim  inimijs,  semcl  delicta  diluuntur.  Quia  ea  iterari  non  oporiet. 
Cacteruui  Israel  Judaeus  quotidie  lavat  quia  quotidie  iniquinatur. 
Quod  ne  in  nobis  quoque  factitaretur,  propterea  de  uno  lavacro 
definitum  est.  Foclix  aqua  quc-e  semcl  abluit,  qux  ludil)rio  peccatori 
bus  non  est,  qiix  non  assiduitate  sordium  infecta  rursus  quos  dilui; 
iniquinat.  Do  Baptisnio  c.  15.  ei  alii^  freq. 


69 

than  that  which  along  with  thee  was  regenerated  to 
Gody  i.  e.  baptized."*  On  another  occasion,  having 
quoted  Matt,  xxviii.  19.  he  remarks,  "  In  connection 
with  this  law,  the  restrictive  sentence  of  Christ,  except  a 
man  be  regenerated  of  xvater  a?id  the  Spirit  he  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven^  does  perempto- 
rily bind  over  our  faith  to  baptism.'''' ^  With  this  doctrine 
in  our  eye,  let  us  read  the  proposed  comment  of  Ter- 
tullian,  which  is  subjoined  to  some  remarks  which  he 
makes  on  the  native  uncleanness  of  the  Gentile  children; 
all  of  whom  he  conceives  to  be  born  unclean;  nay,  ac- 
tually devoted  to  the  devil  by  the  idolatrous  and  abo- 
minable rites  practised  by  the  midwives  and  others 
about  the  time  of  their  birth.  "  So  there  is  no  child 
born  clean^  that  is,  among  the  heathens.  And  hence, 
indeed,  the  apostle  says,  that  when  either  party  m  the 
married  state  is  sanctified,  the  offspring  are  born  holy, 
as  well  by  the  prerog-ative  of  birth  as  by  the  discipline 
of  religious  institution.  '^  £lse,^  says  he,  ^  they  would 
be  born  unclean;''  intending  that  the  children  of  believ- 
ers should  be  considered  as  if  desigtiated  to  holiness, 
and  by  this  also  to  salvation;  consequently  deciding 
that  by  the  pledges  of  this  hope  those  marriages  might 
be  defended  which  he  himself  conceived  ought  to  re- 
main undissolved.  Indeed,  deciding  differently,  he  had 
been  admonished  by  the  definitive  sentence  of  our  Lord, 
Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  ajid  of  the  Spirit  he  can- 

*  Quid  anima  invides  carni?  Nemo  tam  proximus  tibi  quern 
post  Dominum  diligas,  nemo  magis  frater  tuus  quam  quje  tecum 
etiam  in  Deo  nascitur.  De  Resur.  Carnis,  c.  63. 

t  Fuerit  salus  retro  per  fidem  nudam  ante  Domini  passionem 
et  resurrectionem.  At  ubi  fides  aucta  est  credendi  in  nativitatem, 
passionem,  resurrectionemque  ejus,  addita  est  ampliatio  sacra- 
mento,  obsignatio  baptismi,  vestimentum  quodamm.odo  fidci,  qua 
retro  erat  nuda,  nee  potentiam  habuit  sine  su.i  lege.  Lex  enim  tin- 
guendi  imposita  est,  et  forma  prsescripta.  Ite  (inquit)  docite  na- 
tiones,  tinguentes  eas  in  nomen  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti. 
Huic  legi  collata  difinilio  ilia:  Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua  et 
Spiritu,  non  intrabit  in  regnum  coelorum,  obstrinxit  fidem  ad  bap- 
lib'r^  necessitatem.  Ter.  De  Baptisipo,  Lib.  c.  IS. 


70 

7Wt  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Gtod;  that  is,  he  will  not  be 
holy.  Thus  every  soul  is  accounted  as  in  Adam  until  it 
IS  enrolled  in  Jesus  Christ;  and  is  still  unclean  until  it  is 
so  enrolledy  and  sinful, because  unclean."*  HereTertul- 
lian  contrasts  the  condition  of  the  children  of  believers 
with  that  of  the  children  of  heathens:  these  were  unclean 
b}  a  diabolical  devotion  and  the  observance  of  idolatrous 
ceremonies;  those  were  consecrated  to  God,  and  con- 
sidered as  holy,  no  less  from  the  privilege  of  birth  than 
from  the  discipline  of  religion.  But  this  holiness  was 
in  order  to  salvation;  it  was  their  regeneration  to  God, 
and  came  in  the  way  of  water  baptism:  for  in  no 
other  way,  as  he  here,  and  in  numerous  other  places 
asserts,  could  any  one  become  holy  and  regenerate. 
Indeed,  he  considers  them  as  involved  in  sin  by  rela- 
tion to  Adam  until  they  are  enrolled  in  Jesus  Christy 
which  can  mean  nothing  else  than  their  baptism.  Thus 
it  is  seen  that  this  Father  explicitly  recognises  the 
baptism  of  infants  at  their  birth,  as  the  prevailing  order 
and  constitution  of  all  Christian  society  at  that  day,  in 
opposition  to  the  deplorably  wretched  and  ruinous  con- 
dition of  heathen  children,  whom  he  considered  as  seaK 
ed  over  to  demons  by  a  national^  hereditary ^  pubr 
lie  ?ind  private  devotion. ^ 

*  ^?ic  ii^itur  et  Socratem  puerum  adhuc  spirilus  dsmoniacus  in- 
venii.  Sic  et  omnibus  genii  deputantur  quod  dsemonu  nomen  est, 
aileo  nuila  iernic  nativitas  munda  est,  utique  ethnicorum.  Hinp 
enim  et  apostolus  ex  sanctificato  alterutro  sexu  sanctos  procreari 
ait.  Tarn  ex  seminis  praerogaiiva  quam  ex  iiistitutionis  disciplina. 
Cxteruiii  (inquit)  inunundi  :iascerentur,  quasi  designates  tamen 
sanctilatis,  ac  per  hoc  etiam  sakuis,  intelligi  volens  fidelium  filios; 
ut  hujus  spei  pi:2;norci  [1.  pignore^  matrimoniis  qua  retinenda 
ocnsuliat  patrocinam^lur  [1.  patrocinaretur]  Alioquin  metninc- 
rat  Doiuiuicx.  deRniliones,  Nisi  quis  nascatur  ex  aqua  et  spiritu, 
non  introibit  in  regnum  Dei,  id  est,  non  erit  sanctus  Ita  omnis 
aniiTia  eousque  in  Adam  censetur,  donee  in  Christo  recenseatur: 
tamdm  immunda,  quamdiu  recenseatur.  Tertul,  De  Anima.  Lib. 
cap.  o9.  40. 

t  The  context  of  the  passage  just  quoted  is  thist  Ita  omnis  ido- 
ktria  ubatctrice  nascu'utur,  diim  ipsi  adhuc  uteri  infuliis  apud  idoh 


fodeed  it  is  undeniable  that  if  he  believed  at  all  In 
the  salvation  of  infants,  as  we  know  he  did,  he  must 
also  have  believed  in  their  baptism;  for  in  no  other 
way  did  he  admit  the  probability  of  salvation  w  here 
baptism  was  practicable. 

From  the  concise  review  now  taken  of  Tertullian's 
opinion  as  to  baptizing  infants,  it  must  be  manifest  to 
every  impartial  inquirer  that  he  speaks  of  the  practice 
as  being  uniformly  and  universally  observed  in  the 
Christian  church;  that  he  made  opposition  to  it  in  no 
other  cases  than  such  as,  from  want  of  conditmi  and 
othei*  favourable  circumstances,  seemed  to  put  the  sal- 
vation of  the  soul  to  extreme  hazard,  and  consequent- 
ly that  he  is  really  to  be  considered  as  a  decided  wit- 
ness for,  and  not  as  an  opposer  of,  the  practice  of  bap- 
tizing infants.  When  there  existed  no  security  for  the 
future  good  conduct  of  those  infants  offered  for  bap- 
tism, he  thought  it  improper  and  dangerous  to  give  it, 
except  in  very  urgent  cases,  where  threatened  death  im- 
peratively demanded  such  service:  in  all  other  cases 
he  was  the  advocate  and  defender  of  the  custom,  and 
that  too  as  what  had  been  recommended  by  St.  Paul. 

Sect.  2.  The  testimony  of  Origen  is  disposed  of  in 
the  usual  way  by  our  historian,  namely,  by  calling  in 
question  the  correctness,  or  rather  the  genuineness  of 
the  Latin  translations  of  his  works,  and  asserting  that 
the  original  works  of  this  Father,  now  extant,  contain 
nothing  concerning  the  baptism  of  infants. 

On  this  subject  our  historian  expresses  himself  in 
the  following  manner:   "  The  genuine  Greek  works 

confectis  redimiti,  genimina  sua  dasmoniorum  candidata  profiten- 
tur,  dum  in  partu  Lucinx  el  Dianae  cjulatur,  dum  per  totam  hcbdo- 
madam  Junoni  mensa  proponitur,  dum  ultima  die  fata  scribunda  ad- 
vocantur,  dum  prima  etiam  constitutis  infantis  super  terram  sta- 
tins Dese  sacrum  est.  Quis  non  exinde  aut  totum  filii  caput  reatui 
vovet,  aut  aliquem  excipit  crinem,  aut  tota  novacula  prosecat,  aut 
sacrificio  obligat,  aut  sacro  obsignat,  pro  gentica.  pro  avita,  pro 
publica    aut  privata  devotione.  Sic  igitur,  ke.  De  Anima  c.  39. 


72 

(of  Origcn)  contain  nothing  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism; but,  on  the  contrary,  baptism  is  always  spoken 
of  in  relation  to  the  adult.  The  spurious  Latin  pieces 
do  speak  in  favour  of  infant  baptism,  but  they  scent 
strongly  of  forgery  and  seem  to  have  been  written  after 
the  Pelagian  controversy." — "  Indeed  it  is  impossible 
to  quote  any  thing  conclusive  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism from  Origen;  because,  as  he  held  the  preexistence 
of  human  souls,  so  he  affirmed  that,  '  some  souls  be- 
fore they  Avere  born  into  the  world,  and  before  they 
were  united  to  the  bodv,  had  heard  and  been  taught  of 
the  Father.'"* 

There  is  no  good  reason  for  rejecting  as  spurious 
the  Latin  pieces  attributed  to  Origen.  They  are  received 
«s  genuine  by  the  whole  learned  world,  except  some 
of  the  Baptist  writers,  such  as  Tombs,  Gaje,  Booth, 
and  our  author,  whose  interest  and  prejudices  alike 
conspire  to  make  them  act  the  part  they  have  done. 
But  it  deserves  special  notice,  that  M.  Whiston,  who 
was  beyond  doubt  a  man  of  as  great  erudition  as  any 
others  whom  the  Baptists  can  boast,  has  admitted  the 
genuineness  of  the  works  in  question. 

The  homilies  on  Leviticus  and  Joshua,  and  the 
Comments  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  were  trans- 
lated by  Ruffinus.  Whatever  freedoms  this  trans- 
lator might  have  taken  in  rendering  some  parts  of  the 
Greek  homilies  on  Leviticus,  we  know  certainly  that 
he  could  not  have  used  any  in  the  passage  quoted  by 
us  in  proof  of  infant  baptism,  for  two  reasons:  first,  be- 
cause the  baptism  of  infants  is  spoken  of  by  him  iu 
connection  with  the  original  sin  of  infants,  a  doctrine 
which  it  appears  he  denied,  and  of  course  would  have 
been  disposed  to  expunge  rather  than  to  have  added 
passages  containing  it;  and  secondly,  because  that  he 
is  not  charged  with  having  done  any  thing  of  this  kind 
})y  Jerome,  who  maintains  a  hot  controversy  with  him 

*  History  of  Baptism,  p.  223. 


73 

on  this  very  subject.  With  respect  to  the  Comments 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Ruffinus  declares  that 
he  had  "  shortened  his  work  one  half,''''  consequently 
nothing  could  have  been  added.*  And  as  to  the  homiliejs 
on  Joshua,  he  solemnly  assures  the  reader  that  he  has^ 
faithfully  rendered  what  he  found  in  the  Greek  books 
of  Origen,  without  either  addition  or  omission.*  Indeed 
Ruffinus  had  no  temptation  whatever  to  corrupt  and  in- 
terpolate Origen's  works  relative  to  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, which  had  never  been  matter  of  controversy 
prior  to  his  own  time,  and  which  was  then  the  univer- 
sal and  uncontested  practice  of  the  whole  church.  Or 
had  he  attempted  the  supposed  corruptions  and  inter- 
polations, would  not  his  learned  adversary,  Jerome, 
have  chastised  him  for  it  with  eager  severity,  as  he 
aimed  to  do  with  respect  to  his  translation  of  Origen's 
Book  of  Principles?  Yet  this  has  not  been  done  by 
Jerome  or  any  other  writer  of  eminence  after  him, 
either  of  ancient  or  modern  times,  Baptists  excepted; 
and  such  being  the  fact,  the  credibility  of  these  trans- 
lations remains  fairly  unquestionable.  The  translation 
of  the  Homilies  on  Luke  were  made  by  Jerome  himself, 
and  possesses  every  claim  to  confidence,  in  as  much 
as  it  is  mentioned  by  himself  in  the  catalogue  of  his 
own  works,  and  if  we  except  Baptist  Avriters,  never 
was  called  in  question  as  to  authenticity  by  any  man  of 
learning,  but  Erasmus,  who  afterwards  recanted  his 
opinion.  Let  us  now  hear  the  testimony  of  Origen. 
Homilia  8.  in  Levit.  c.  12. 
Audi  David  dicentem,  in  iniquitatibus,  inquit,  con- 
ceptus  sum,  et  in  peccatis  peperit  me  mater  mea: 
ostendens  quod  qusscunque  anima  in  carne  nascatur, 
iniquitatis  et  peccati  sorde  polluitur:  et  propterea  die* 
tum  esse  illud  quod  jam  superius  memoravim-us;  qui^ 
nemo  mundus  a  sorde,  nee  si  unius  diei  fuerit  vita 
ejus.  Addi  his  etiam  illud  potest,  ut  requiratur  quid 

*  Peroratio  in- Horn,  ad  Romanos. 
K 


causas  sit,  cum  baptisma  ecclesije  in  remissionem  pec- 
catorum  detur,  secundum  ecclesise  observantiam  etiam 
parvulis  baptismum  dari:  cum  utique  si  nihil  esset  in 
parvulis  quod  ad  remissionem  deberet  et  indulgen- 
tiam  pertinere  gratia  baptismi  superfiua  videretur. 

"  Hear  David  speaking,  '/waj,'sayshe,  ^conceived  in 
iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  bringmeiforth:''  showing 
that  every  soul  that  is  born  in  the  flesh  is  polluted  with 
the  filth  of  sin  and  iniquity:  and  that  therefore  that  was 
said  which  we  mentioned  before,  that  none  is  clean 
from  pollution,  though  his  life  be  but  of  the  length  of 
one  day.  Besides  all  this,  let  it  be  considered,  what  is 
the  reason  that  whereas  the  baptism  of  the  church  is 
given  for  the  remission  of  sins,  infants  also  are  by  the 
usage  of  the  church  baptized:  when  if  there  were  no- 
thing in  infants  that  wanted  forgiveness. and  mercy, 
tlie  grace  of  baptism  would  be  needless  to  them." 
Homilia  in  Lucam  14. 

Quod  frequenter  inter  fratres  quairitur,  loci  occa- 
sione  conmiota  (commotus)  retracto.  Parvali  bapti- 
zantur  in  remissionesm  peccatorum.  Quorum  peccato- 
rum?  vel  quo  tempore  peccaverunt?  aut  quomodo  po- 
test uUa  lavacri  in  parvulis  ratio  subsistere,  nisi  juxta 
ilium  sensumde  quopaulo  antediximus;nullusmundus 
a  sorde,  nee  si  unius  diei  quidem  fuerit  vita  ejus  su.- 
per  terram?  Et  quia  per  baptismi  sacramentum  nativi- 
tatis  sordes  deponuntur,  propterea  baptizantur  et  par- 
vuli. 

"Having  occasion  given  by  this  place,  I  will  mention 
a  matter  which  excites  frequent  inquiries  among  the 
brethren.  Infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
Of  what  sins?  or  when  have  they  sinned?  or  how  can  any 
reason  for  baptism  be  alleged  in  their  case,  unless  it  be 
in  conformity  1»  the  sense  just  now  expressed,  namely, 
that  none  is  free  from  poUution,  though  his  life  be  but 
the  length  of  one  day  upon  earth?  and  it  is  for  that 
reason,  because  b,y  the  sacrament  of  baptism  the  pol- 


75 

lutions  of  our  birth  are  taken  away,  that  infants  ftvjt 
baptized.'''' 

Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Romanes.  Lib.  5. 

Denique  et  in  lege  pro  illo  qui  natus  fuerit,  jubetur 
oiferri  hostia  par  turturum  aut  duo  pulli  colombini: 
exquibusunuspro  peccato,  alius  in  holocaustomata:  pro 
quo  peccato  oflPertur  hie  pullus  unus?  Nunquid  nuper 
editus  parvulus  peccare  potuit?  Ettunchabetpeccatum, 
pro  quo  hostia  jubetur  ofFerri,  a  quo  mundus  negatur 
quis  esse  etsi  unius  diei  fuerit  vita  ejus.  De  hoc  ergo 
etiam  David  dixisse  credendus  est  illud  quod  supra 
memoravimus;  quia  in  peccato  concepit  me  mater 
mea:  secundum  historiam  enim  nullum  matris  decla- 
ratur  peccatum.  Pro  hoc  et  ecclesia  ab  apostolis  tradi- 
tionem  suscepit  etiam  parvulis  baptismum  dare.  Scie. 
bant  enim  illi  quibus  mysteriorum  secreta  commissa 
sunt  divinorum,  quia  essent  in  omnibus  genuiUae  sor- 
des  peccati,  quae  per  aquam  et  spiritum  ablui  deberent: 
propter  quas  etiam  corpus  ipsum  corpus  peccati  no- 
minatur. 

"  And  also  in  the  law  it  is  commanded  that  a  sacri- 
fice be  offered  for  every  child  that  is  born;  a  pair  of  tur- 
tle dovcs^  or  two  young  pigeons:  of  which  one  is  for  a 
sin  offering,  the  other  for  a  burnt  offeiing.  For  what 
sin  is  this  one  pigeon  offered?  Can  the  child  that  is 
new  born  have  committed  any  sin?  It  has  even  then 
sin,  for  which  the  sacrifice  is  commanded  to  be  offer- 
ed; from  which  even  he  whose  life  is  of  but  one  day  is 
denied  to  be  free.  Of  this  sin  David  is  to  be  supposed 
to  have  said  that  which  we  mentioned  before;  Iji  sin 
did  my  mother  conceive  me:  for  there  is  in  the  history 
no  account  of  any  particular  sin  that  his  mother  had 
committed.  For  this  also  it  was  that  the  church  re- 
ceived a  document  or  order  from  the  apostles  to  give 
baptism  to  infants.  For  they  to  whom  the  divine  mys- 
teries were  committed,  knew  that  there  is  in  all  per- 
sons that  native  pollution  of  sin,  which  must  be  eleans- 
ed  by  water  and  the  Spirit:  by  reason  of  which  the 
body  itself  is  called  the  body  ofsin.'^ 


76 

Horn.  9.  in  Josuam. 

After  stating  that  the  angels  are  supposed  to  be  pre- 
sent at  the  administration  of  the  holy  sacrament  he  has 
this  remark: 

Secundum  Domini  sententiam  dicentis  de  infanti- 
bus  (quod  et  tu  fuisti  infans  in  baptismo)  quia  angeli 
eorum  semper  vident  faciem  Patris  mei  qui  in  coelis  est. 

"According  to  that  saying  of  our  Lord  concerning  in- 
fants (cwo?  thou  wast  an  infant  whenthou  wast  baptized,) 
their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father 
who  is  in  heaven."* 

Such  is  the  testimony  which  we  derive  from 
Origen,  and  such  the  credibility  of  the  books  from 
which  it  is  taken:  and  when  they  are  fairly  stated,  there 
can  be  no  hesitation  in  averring  that  both  the  one  and 
the  other  recommends  itself  to  our  confidence  and  be- 
lief by  evidence  entirely  satisfactory.  The  objection  made 
by  Mr.  Robinson  to  the  credibility  of  Origen's  tes- 
timony, on  the  ground  of  his  belief  of  the  preexistence 
of  souls  and  their  illumination  before  they  were  united 
to  the  body,  is  as  inconsistent  as  it  is  futile.  He  him- 
self quotes  Tertullian  and  others,  without  hesitancy ,  who 
held  opinions  as  absurd  as  these  of  Origen;  and  who, 
lask,  e ver thought  thataperson  wasdisqualifiedforwrit- 
ing  the  truth  because  he  might  happen  to  entertain 
some  false  and  whimsical  notions  concerning  religion. 
Soame  Jennyns  believed  in  the  preexistence  of  souls 
and  several  other  absurd  whimsies,  yet  the  whole- 
Ciiristian  world  consider  him  a  man  of  veracity,  and 
admire  his  able  and  eloquent  exhibitions  of  the  evi- 
dences evincing  the  truth  of  Christianity. 

THE  CHARACTER  AND  TESTIMONY  OF  CYPRIAN. 

Sect.  3.  To  do  away  the  testimony  of  Cyprian  and 
his  college  of  bishops  at  Carthage  a.  d.  257.  Mr.  Robin- 

*  See  Wall's  Hist,  of  Infant  Baptism.  Pt.  1st,  chap.  5. 


77 

SMI  takes  a  very  extraordinary  course  of  proceeding. 
He  begins  with  quoting  Salvian,  a  worthy  but  gloomy 
historian,  who  says  of  the  Africans,  that,  "In  spite  of 
their  vain  boasts  of  an  orthodox  faith,  they  were  Pagans 
and  blasphemers,  who  worshipped  idols  in  secret,  and 
dedicated  their  children  in  their  infancy  to  demons." 
p.  182. 

And  with  respect  to  Cyprian  himself  he  pronounces 
him  to  be  "  an  ignorant  fanatic  and  as  great  a  tyrant  as 
ever  lived."  p.  184.  After  presenting  his  reader  with 
this  dark  and  even  hideous  representation  of  African 
Christians  and  their  bishops,  he  proceeds  to  give  a  very 
highly  charged  picture  of  the  savage  manners  and 
habits  of  the  people  in  the  district  where  Fidus  lived, 
first  in  their  Pagan  and  then  in  their  Christian  state: 
and  particularly  states,  indeed  attempts  to  prove,  that 
soon  after  the  propagation  of  Christianity  among  them, 
judaizing  teachers  found  access  to  them,  and  intro- 
duced the  idea  that  the  Jewish  scriptures  were  as  much 
a  rule  of  life  as  the  four  gospels;  not  forgetting  to  abuse 
in  a  copious  stream  of  acrimonious  invective  on  Pau- 
linus  and  Optatus  of  Milevi,  men  who  unquestion- 
ably deserved  better  treatment.  P.  189,  190. 

After  these  preparatory,  and,  shall  I  say,  very  Chris- 
tian efforts  to  blast  the  reputation  of  these  African 
Christians,  and  especially  those  bishops  whose  testi- 
mony  in  favour  of  infant  baptism  has  reached  our 
times,  the  learned  historian  makes  the  grand  stroke  by 
which  he  hopes  to  prostrate  for  ever  the  testimony  of 
Cyprian  and  his  assodate  bishops.  "  Collecting  into 
one  point  of  view,"  says  he,  "  all  the  fore  mentioned 
facts,  the  eye  fixes  upon  one  Fidus,  the  honest  bishop 
of  a  company  of  Christians  in  a  country  place  of  Africa, 
where  some  of  his  neighbours  bought,  stole,  captivated 
and  burnt  children:  where  some  of  his  flock  returned 
to  Paganism,  others  intermarried  with  Pagan  frmilies; 
and  went  with  them  into  the  old  practices  of  sacijfice- 
ing,  as  formerly,  children  to  their  gods.  Himself  filled 


vVith  Jewish  ideas  of  dedicating  children  to  the  tKue 
God,  and  marking  them  with  circumcision,  and  send- 
ing for  advice  to  Cyprian,  exactly  such  another  con- 
fused genius  as  himself.  Is  it  a  very  improbable  conjec- 
ture, that  Fidus  bethoughthimself  of  baptizingnew  born 
infants  as  an  expedient  to  save  the  lives  of  the  lambs  of 
the  flock?"  p.  193.  What,  and  have  all  those  formida- 
ble preparations  of  the  historian  issued  at  last  in  beg- 
ging a  conjecture  not  very  improbable?  This,  truly,  is 
to  go  a  mumping'  with  a  lame  leg  in  quest  of  a  conclu- 
sion. But  even  those  facts,  upon  which  he  would  ex- 
pect us  to  allow  his  conjecture,  are  not  exactly  so. 
There  is,  as  every  one  knows  who  is  ever  so  little  ac- 
quainted with  the  history  of  those  times,  a  good  deal 
of  high  colouring,  a  very  strong  exhibition  of  shade 
without  the  light,  in  the  portrait  he  has  given  of  the  ec- 
clesiastical affairs  of  that  period.  Cyprian,  for  instance, 
was  a  very  different  person  from  what  he  is  represent- 
ed to  have  been  by  Mr.  Robinson.  When  delineated 
by  the  enUghtened  and  impartial  pen  of  Mosheim,  he 
claims  our  admiration  as  one  who,  being  "  a  man  of 
the  most  eminent  abilities,  and  flowing  eloquence, 
stands  foremost  in  the  list  of  Latin  writers.  His  letters, 
and  indeed  most  of  his  works,  breathe  such  a  noble 
and  pathetic  spirit  of  piety  that  it  is  impossible  to 
read  them  without  the  warmest  feelings  of  enthusi- 


asm 


"* 


•  Dr.  Lardner,  whomMr.  Robinson  names  with  great  m^ 
tcrest  as  well  as  conscious  pride,  speaks  of  the  bishop  of 
Carthage  as  "  a  man  of  bright  natural  parts  and  no  in- 
considerable acquired  abilities;"  and  having  warmly 
eulogized  his  diligence,  stedfastness,  and  martyred 
firmness,  he  adds,  "  The  whole  tenor  of  Cyprian's  life 
after  his  conversion,  peaceable,  charitable,  and  benefi- 
cent to  men  of  all  characters  in  distress,  and  the  man- 
ner of  his  death  undaunted,  willing,  and  ready,  with- 
out seeking  it,  are  a  very  valuable  testimony  in  behalf 

*  Masheim's  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  264. 


79 

of  the  truth  and  excellence  of  the  principles  of  the 
Christian  religion." — "  He  was  a  man  made  for  busi- 
ness, had  a  diligent  and  active  spirit,  and  talents  equal 
to  the  charge  wherewith  he  was  intrusted;  and  I 
would  add,  that  he  was  not  only  a  man  of  great  au- 
thority in  his  lifetime,  but  likewise  of  great  reputation 
afterwards."*  With  these  honorable  testimonies  to  the 
worth  of  Cyprian  before  his  eyes,  the  reader  will  know 
how  to  estimate  the  man  who,  under  the  imposing  cha- 
racter of  a  historian,  has  the  temerity  to  call  this  venera- 
ble martyr  "  an  ignorant  fanatic  and  as  great  a  tyrant 
as  ever  livedP'' 

Neither  did  Optatus  and  Paulinus,  (who  indeed  be- 
long to  another  period)  merit  the  heavy  unqualified 
imputations,  the  illiberal  censures  which  Mr.  Robin- 
son endeavours  to  heap  on  their  memory.  I'heywere 
persons  of  reputation  and  real  worth;  but  as  their  tes- 
timony is  not  very  important  to  this  controversy,  and 
as  they  were  contemporaneous  with  others  who  give  a 
clear  and  unambiguous  testimony  to  the  practice  of 
baptizing  infants,  I  will  offer  no  formal  defence  in  their 
favour  against  the  calumnies  of  Mr.  Robinson.  Very 
different  too  was  the  state  of  morals  and  religion  in 
Africa  at  the  time  of  Cyprian  and  Fid  us  from  what  it 
seems  to  be  in  the  disgusting  caricature  of  Mr.  Ro- 
binson. 

After  making  these  very  splendid  efforts  at  abusing 
an  innocent  but  less  informed  age  of  the  church,  and 
some  reputable  names  of  Christian  antiquity,  our  his- 
torian proceeds  to  assail  Cyprian's  testimony  in  direct 
terms  by  saying,  "  There  are  several  reasons  to  suspect 
that  the  letter  to  Fidus  is  all  a  forgery."  p.  195.  And 
why  then  did  he  not  inform  his  reader  what  those  seve- 
ral reasons  were?  Did  they  exist  in  fact,  it  might,  it 
ought  to  have  been  done.  But  no;  as  to  that  he  is  close 
as  the  grave  itself,  nor  dares  to  disclose  them.  The 

*  Qredibil.  of  Gosp.  Hist  vol,  i.  p.  142,  147, 


80 

truth  is,  if  he  really  had  any,  they  were  such  as  he  fearv 
ed,  and  justly  feared,  would  not  bear  the  light;  for 
rarely,  indeed,  has  the  genuineness  of  any  historical  do- 
cument been  more  amply  attested  than  this  letter  of 
Cyprian.  Both  Augustin  and  Jerome  quote  it  express- 
ly as  a  matter  of  high  authority  in  the  controversies  of 
the  day. 

Jerome  speaks  of  him  thus: 

Beatus  quidam  Cyprianus  non  aliquod  decretum 
condens  novum: '  sed  ecclesia  fidem  firmissimam  ser- 
vans,  ad  corrigendum  eos  qui  putabant  ante  octavum 
diem  nativitatis,  non  esse  parvulum  baptizandum:  non 
carnem  sed  animam  dixit  esse  perdendum:  et  nx)x  na- 
turn  rite  baptizare  posse,  cum  suis  quibusdam  episco- 
pis  censuit.  Opera  Hieron.  Tom.  9.  p.  164. 

"  To  correct  certain  persons  who  alleged  that  an  in- 
fant ought  not  to  be  baptized  before  the  eighth  day  after 
nativity.  Blessed  Cyprian  declared  not  that  n& 
body,  but  that  no  soul  was  to  be  lost,  and  with  a  num- 
ber of  his  fellow  bishops  decreed  that  an  infant  inight 
with  propriety  be  baptized  immediately  after  the  birth; 
not  thcr  by  forming  some  new  canon,  but  observing 
the  most  firmly  established  faith  of  the  church.^'' 

Augustin  refers  to  Cyprian's  letter  in  his  Ep.  28.  ad 
Hieronym.  thus: 

"Blessed  Cyprian  not  making  any  new  decree, 
but  expressing  the  firm  faith  of  the  church,  in  refuting 
those  who  thought  a  child  must  not  be  baptized  before 
the  eighth  day  said,  not  that  no  flesh,  but  that  «o  soul 
must  be  lost.''' 

In  Lib.  4.  contra  duas  Epist.  Pelagianorum  c.  8.  he 
makes  three  large  citations  from  it. 

Again  m  Lib.  3.  de  peccatorummeritis  et  remissione 
c.  5.  he  distinctly  mentions  this  letter  of  Cyprian,  and 
then  cites  three  paragraphs  verbatim  out  of  it.  And  in 
a  public  discourse  at  Carthage  against  Pelagianism, 
Augustin  quotes  a  part  of  this  epistle,  telling  the  peo- 
ple that  they  were  the  words  of  Cyprian,  an  ancient 


81 

bishop  of  Carthage.*  And  from  the  time  of  Augub- 
tin  till  this  horn*  no  person  has  ever  questioned  the 
genuineness  of  Cyprian's  letter,  except  a  few  choice 
spirits,  such  as  Danvers  and  Robinson.  The  more 
learned  and  candid  of  the  Baptists,  as  Tombs,  Gill  and 
Whiston,  admit  its  authenticity  and  incorruptness 
without  hesitation. 

But  mark  the  new  attitude  assumed  by  this  wiley 
historian!  "  It  doth  not  appear  that  infants  were  bap- 
tized at  Carthage,  or  any  where  else,  except  in  thecoun- 
try  where  Fidus  lived;  and  there,  because,  says  Cyprir 
an,  as  Jesus  came  to  save  men's  lives,  we  ought  to  do 
all  we  can  to  favom*  his  kind  intention,  and,  like  the 
prophet,  recal  to  life  children  under  a  sentence  of  death. 
An  opinion  of  the  council  that  Fidus  ought  to  baptize 
infants,  is  very  far  from  proving  that  the  advisers,  who 
were  in  different  circumstances,  did  so."  p.  198,  199. 

Quo  teneam  vultus  Protea  nodo? 

Whoever  has  read  the  letter  of  Cyprian  will  know 
that  the  ideas  here  advanced  by  Mr.  Robinson  are  ut- 
terly incorrect  and  impossible.  Mr.  Robinson  would 
induce  the  reader  to  believe  that  the  whole  affair  be- 
tween Fidus  and  the  council  was  to  introduce  an  ex- 
pedient to  save  natural  life;  yet  nothing  was  ever 
farther  from  truth.  The  council,  in  support  of  their 
judgment,  which  was  that  infants  of  every  age,  even 
those  but  just  born,  should  be  baptized,  allege  that  th^ 
mercy  and  grace  of  God  are  to  be  denied  to  no  hu^ 
man  creature;  that  Christ  himself  had  said,  he  came  to 
save,  not  to  destroy  the  souls  of  men;  that  consequently 
it  greatly  behoved  them  to  take  care  that  not  a  single 
soul  should  be  lost;  that  whatsoever  was  produced  by 
divine  power  (alluding  to  the  child  in  the  several 
stages  of  foetal  life  down  to  the  birth)  was  to  be  consi- 
dered as  perfect  from  the  majesty  and  work  of  the  maker 
God,  and  therefore   that   it  was  the  decisive  expres- 

*  S^e  Wall':*  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  Part  I.  chap.  VL 

L 


8^ 

sion  of  the  sacred'scriptures,  that  amongst  all  of  human, 
kind,  whether  infants  or  adults,  there  should  be  but 
one  equal  distribution  of  the  divine  benefit.  But  I  will 
present  my  reader  with  an  extract  of  this  far-famed 
letter,  and  let  him  judge  for  himself. 

Cypriani  Epist.  64.  ad  Fidum — Cyprianus  et 
Caeteri  Collegas,  qui  in  concilio  affuerunt,  numero  66, 
Fido  fratri,  salutem — Legimus  literas  tuas,  frater  caris- 
sime,  quibus  significasti  de  Victore  quodam  presby- 
tero,  &c. 

Quantum  vero  ad  causam  infantium  pertinet,  quos 
dixisti,  intra  secundum  vel  tertium  diem,  quo  nati 
vsunt,  constitutos,  baptizari  non  oportere;  et  consi- 
derandum  esse,  legem  circumcisionis  antiquse;  ut 
intra  octavum  diem  eum  qui  natus  est  bapti- 
zandum  et  sanctificandum  non  putares;  longe  aliud  in 
concilio  nostro  omnibus  visum  est.  In  hoc  enim  quod 
tu  putabas  esse  faciendum,  nemo  consensit;  sed  uni- 
versi  potius  judicavimus,  nulli  hominum  nato  miseri- 
cordiam  Dei  et  gratiam  denegandam.  Nam  cum  Do- 
minus  in  evangeiio  suo  dicat;  Filius  hominis  non  ve- 
nit  animas  hominum  perdere,  sed  salvare;  quantum  in 
nobis  est,  si  fieri  potest,  nulla  anima  perdenda  est. 
Quid  enim  ei  deest,  qui  semel  in  utero  Dei  manibus 
formatus  est?  Nobis  enim  atque  oculis  nostris  secun- 
dum dierum  secularium  currum  accipere  qui  nati  sunt, 
incrementum  videntur.  Cseterum  quascunque  a  Deo 
fiunt,  Dei  factoris  majestate  et  opere  perfecta  sunt. 
Esse  denique  apud  omnes,  sive  infantis,  sive  majoris 
natu  nnum  divini  muneris  aequalitatem  declarat  nobis 
divinae  scripturae  fides — propter  quod  neminem  puta- 
mus  a  gratia  conscquenda  impediendum  esse  ea  lege, 
quai  jam  statuta  est,  nee  spiritualem  circumcisionem 
impediri  carnali  circumcisione  debere,  sed  omnem  om- 
nino  admittendum  esse  ad  gratiam  Christi,  quando  et 
Petrus  in  Actis  Apostolorum  loquatur  et  dicat,  Domi- 
nus  mihi  dixit  neminem  hominem  communem  dicen. 
dum  et  imn?undum.  Creterum  si  homines  impedirc 


8,3 

aliquid  ad  gratias  coosecutionem  possit;  magis  adultos 
et  provectos  et  majores  natu  possent  impedire  peccata 
graviora.  Porro  autem  si  etiam  gravissimis  delictori- 
bus,  et  in  Deum  multum  ante  peccantibus,  cum  pos- 
tea  crediderint,  remissa  peccatorum  datur,  et  a  bap- 
tismo  atque  a  gratia  nemo  prohibetur:  quanto  magis 
prohiberi  non  debet  infans,  qui  recens  natus  nihil  pec- 
cavit,  nisi  quod  secundum  Adam  carnaliter  natus  con- 
tagium  mortis  antiquae  prima  nativitate  contraxit? 
qui  ad  remissam  peccatorum  accipiendarii  hoc  ipso 
faciUus  accedit,  quod  ilh  remittuntur  non  propria  sed 
aliena  peccata.  Et  idcirco,  frater  carissime,  haec  fuit  in 
concilio,  nostra  sententia,  a  baptismo  atque  a  gratia 
Dei,  qui  omnibus  et  misericors  etbenignus  etpiusest, 
neminem  per  nos  debere  prohiberi.  Quod  cum  circa 
universos  observandum  sit  atque  retinendum;  magis 
circa  infantes  ipsos  et  recens  natos  observandum  puta- 
mus,  &c. 

"  Cyprian  and  the  associate  bishops  present  at  the 
council,  sixty  six  in  number,  to  Fidus  our  brother, 
greeting. 

"  We  read  your  letter,  very  dear  brother,  in  which 
you  write  of  one  Victor  a  presbyter,"  &c. 

"  But  with  respect  to  the  case  of  infants,  which,  as 
you  have  stated,  should  not  be  baptized  w4thin  the 
second  and  third  day  after  their  birth;  and  as  to  what 
you  would  also  suggest,  that  the  rule  of  the  ancient 
circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  requiring  that  none  is 
to  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day 
after  nativity;  it  has  appeared  far  otherwise  to  us  all  in 
our  council.  For  as  to  what  you  had  conceived  should 
be  done  in  this  affair,  not  a  single  person  thought  with 
you;  but  we  all  gave  it  as  our  opinion  that  the  mercy 
and  grace  of  God  should  be  denied  to  none  of  human 
kind.  For  since  our  Lord  in  his  gospel  says,  "  The  son 
of  man  came  not  to  destroy  meii's  souls,  but  to  save 
them:''''  as  much  as  possible  then  should  M^e  exert  our 
best  endeavours  that  uo  soul  should  be  lost.  For  what 


8-i 

deficiency  can  there  be  in  the  human  creature  that  has 
been  formed  in  the  womb  by  the  hands  of  the  Al- 
mighty?— Such  existences  appear  to  us  to  attain  in- 
crease in  die  course  of  the  days  of  the  world.  But 
whatsoever  things  are  the  product  of  the  Deity  derive 
perfection  from  the  majesty  and  work  of  God  the 
maker.  The  authority  of  inspiration  informs  us  of  the 
single  equality  of  the  divine  gift  to  all  persons,  whether 
infants  or  adults." — "  On  which  account  we  conceive 
that  no  person  is  t,o  be  prevented  from  obtaining  grace 
by  the  law  which  is  now  established,  and  that  the 
spiritual  circumcision  is  not  to  be  restricted  by  the  cir- 
cumcision which  is  of  the  flesh:  but  that  persons  of 
every  age  and  condition  are  to  be  admitted  to  the  grace 
of  Christ:  since  Peter,  speaking  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, declares,  and  our  Lord  has  said,  that  nopersofi  is  to 
be  called  common  or  unclean.  But  if  any  thing  can  pre- 
vent men  from  receivmg  this  grace,  it  should  seem 
rather  that  highly  aggravated  sins  ought  to  shut  out 
the  adult  and  aged  from  obtaining  it.  And  yet  more, 
if  to  the  vilest  offenders,  and  to  those  who  have  once 
greatly  sinned  against  God,  the  remission  of  sin  is 
given  when  they  shall  have  believed;  and  if  from  bap- 
tism and  grace  no  person  is  to  be  excluded;  by  how 
much  the  more  should  the  infant  be  exempt  from  pro- 
hibition, who  being  but  just  born  has  never  sinned 
otherwise  than,  as  sprung  by  a  carnal  birth  from  Adam, 
he  has  contracted,  in  the  earliest  moments  of  nativity, 
the  contagion  of  death  originally  threatened?  and  who 
for  this  very  reason  attains  the  more  easily  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  because  they  are  not  his  own  but  others' 
sins  which  are  remitted  to  him.  Therefore,  very  dear 
brother,  this  has  been  our  decision  in  council,  thatyro/72 
baptism  and  the  grace  of  God,  xvfio  is  mercijul  and  be- 
7iign  aiid  affectionate  to  all,  no  person  is  to  be  prohibited 
by  us.  Which  rule,  seeing  it  ought  to  be  regarded  and 
attended  to  with  respect  to  men  in  general,  should,  as 
we  apprehend,  be  more  especially  observed  in  refer* 


ence  to  mere  infants  and  to  those  too  who  are  but  just 
born.'' 

This  abstract  of  Cyprian's  letter  will  show  the  reader 
how  Uttle  reason  Mr.  Robinson  had  to  say,  the  whole 
affair  between  Fidus  and  the  council  was  a  contriv- 
ance to  save  the  natural  lives  of  children.  Cyprian  and 
his  fellow  bishops,  no  less  than  Fidus,  on  that  occasion, 
act  upon  the  acknowledged  existence  of  infant  bafjtism; 
*'  not  thereby  making  any  new  decree,"  as  Augustin 
and  Jerome  both  declare,  "  but  retaining  the  faith  of 
the  church  before  ?nostfrml//  established/  The  question 
proposed  by  Fidus  to  the  council  was  not  whether  a 
child,  or  children,  now  for  the  first  time,  might  be 
baptized  in  a  certain  district  of  Africa,  when,  accord- 
ing to  the  supposition,  the  practice  was  no  w^here  else 
observed;  but  whether  they  might  be  baptized  before 
the  eighth  day  after  the  birth? — To  this  question  they 
gave  a  large  answer,  asserting  that  it  was  lawful,  if 
otherwise  convenient,  to  baptize  the  child  as  soon  as 
it  was  born;  and  making  it  evident,  by  the  whole  of 
their  reasonings,  that  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants 
was  at  tliat  time  universally  prevalent  in  the  church. 
So  every  honest  unprejudiced  man  must  understand 
them. 

Besides,  it  is  to  be  recollected  that  Cyprian  bears  a 
similar  testimony  in  other  parts  of  his  work.  In  his 
book  De  lafisis,  circa  Medium,  Sect.  7.  and  also  mJJbro 
3.  Testimoniorum  ad  Quiriftum  c.  25.  infant  baptism 
is  clearly  implied  as  being  the  general  practice  of  the 
church  at  that  time:  but  the  passages  are  too  long 
to  be  inserted  here.*  There  is  yet  another  testimony 
of  this  Father,  Ad  Demet.  prope  finem,  which  deserves 
to  be  noticed.  Cyprian  having  introduced  Ezek.  ix. 
6.  where  the  commission  to  destroy  enjoins  the  exe- 
cutioners of  God's  vengeance  to  slay  all,  old  and  young, 
maids  and  littlechildren,  who  were  distitute  of  the 
mark  of  God  on  their  foreheads,  expounds  it  as  relate 

*  See  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism.  Pt.  I.  Ch.  V'l. 


86 

ing  to  Christians,  and  says,  "  that  none  can  now  escape 
but  those  only  that  are  renati  et  signo  Christi  signati, 
baptized  and  signed  with  Christ's  mark."  Mr.  Wall 
employs  this  passage  to  prove  that  the  sign  of  the 
cross  was,  in  Cyprian's  time,  associated  with  baptism; 
but  if  it  was,  it  is  the  first  we  hear  of  it  in  church  his- 
tory. Baptism  itself  is  Christ's  mark. 

It  is  tlius  we  see  that  the  integrity  of  Cyprian's  tes- 
timony remains  unimpaired,  notwithstanding  the  la- 
boured  assaults  of  this  ingenious  but  unfair  and  too 
deeply  prejudiced  writer. 

THE  CHARACTER  AND  TESTIMONY  OF  AUGUSTIN. 

Sect.  4.  The  essay  of  our  learned  historian  at  putting 
down  the  testimony  of  Augustin  is  in  a  high  degree 
reprehensible.  It  is  a  mere  stream  of  calumnious  re- 
mark, in  which  he  gives  vent  to  the  unsparing  effu- 
sions of  all  the  prejudice  and  sectarian  hate  which 
rankled  at  his  heart.  The  crimination  of  this  Father  he 
seeks  with  unbounded  ardour,  and  to  effect  it  rakes  into 
existence  all  the  filth  of  either  ancient  or  modern  times 
for  something  with  which  to  stain  the  pure  fame  of  the 
bishop  of  Hippo.  He  represents  Augustin  as  a  paltry 
school- master,  a  dealer  in  "  scraps  of  learning,"  and 
asserts  that  "  he  understood  neither  Greek  nor  He- 
brew." He  informs  his  reader  that  "  Bayie,  in  his  life 
of  Augustin,  quotes  some  French  writers  who  prove 
him  to  be  a  constant  hard  drinker."  Le  Clerc  helps 
the  eager  historian  to  some  abuse,  and  Voltaire  can 
make  it  out  quite  to  his  liking,  that  Augustin  held  two 
opinions  respecting  persecution,  the  one  Jor  and  the 
other  against  iti  his  mind  fluctuating  just  as  he  was  i?i 
or  out  of  power.  In  a  word,  he  thus  finishes  the  pic- 
ture: "  Augustin  was  a  crafty  irritated  man,  hemmed 
in,  disappointed  and  foiled  by  able  opponents;  passion 
for  power  was  his  ruling  disposition,  after  his  sensual 
appetites  had  spent  their  force  in  debauchery;"*  and 

*  Hist.  Bap.  p.  203;  205,  217. 


87 

in  his  Ecclesiastical  Researches  he  calls  him  "  a  hitter 
and  bloody  fanatic  y^  The  falsehood  of  this  dark  and 
horrific  portrait  will  be  manifest  from  the  deliberate 
judgment  of  several  writers,  who  cannot  be  accused  of 
partiality,  and  whose  literary  eminence  none  will  dare 
to  dispute.  Mr.  Gibbon  thus  draws  his  churc-.cter: 
"  Tlie  youth  of  Augustin  had  been  stained  bj  the 
vices  and  errors  which  he  so  ingenuously  confesses; 
but  from  the  moment  of  his  conversion  to  that  of  his 
death,  the  manners  of  the  bishop  of  Hippo  were  pure 
and  austere;  and  the  most  conspicuous  of  his  virtues 
was  an  ardent  zeal  against  heretics  of  every  denomina- 
tion; the  Manicheans,  the  Donatists,  and  the  Pelagians, 
against  whom  he  waged  a  perpetual  controversy" — 
**  According  to  the  judgment  of  the  most  impartial 
critics,  the  superficial  learning  of  Augustin  was  con- 
fined to  the  Latin  language;  and  his  style,  though 
sometimes  animated  by  the  eloquence  of  passion,  is 
usually  clouded  by  false  and  aftected  rhetoric.  But  he 
possessed  a  strong,  capacious,  and  argumentative 
mind;  he  boldly  sounded  the  dark  abyss  of  grace,  pre- 
destination, free  will  and  original  sin;  and  the  rigid 
system  of  Christianity  w^hich  he  framed  or  restored^  has 
been  entertained,  with  public  applause  and  secret  reluc- 
tance, by  the  Latin  church."!  Dr.  Lardner,  who  had 
explored  Cliristian  antiquity  with  vast  ability,  and  who, 
of  course,  was  incomparably  better  fitted  to  judge  con- 
cerning him  than  Gibbon,  pronounces  "Augustin  a  wit 
of  the  first  order  and  a  principal  glory  of  Africa."  He 
commends  his  mildness  and  moderation  towards  the 
Manicheans,  againsi  whom  he  contended  and  by  whom 
he  had  been  entangled;  and  maintained,  by  incontrovert- 
ible facts,  that  he  understood  Greek  well  enough  to  read 
the  Greek  scriptures  and  occasionally  to  translate  a  pas- 
sage from  the  Greek  di\  ines;:j:  which,  to  say  no  more, 

*  Eccl.  Res.  p.  202. 

t  Decl.  and  Fall  of  Rom.  Empire,  Vol.  IV.  p.  221,  222. 
\  See  Lardner's  Cred.  Gosp.  Hist.  Vol.  III.  p.  399,  544.  Vol.  V. 
p.  81 — 8-t. 


8« 

was  quite  as  much  literature  as  fell  to  the  share  of  his 
accuser,  Mr.  Robinson.  Augustin  is  described  by  Eras- 
mus, who  was  himself  a  prodigy  of  talent  and  learn- 
ing, as  a  specimen  of  incomparable  sweetness  of  tem- 
per, and  of  great  acuteness  and  penetration  of  mind.*- 

Let  me  state,  also,  what  has  been  said  of  the  talents 
and  virtues  of  this  illustrious  Father  by  Mosheim. 
"  The  fa  .  e  of  Augustin,  bishop  of  Hippo,  in  Africa, 
filled  the  whole  Christian  world;  and  not  without  rea- 
son, as  a  variety  of  great  and  shining  qualities  were 
united  in  the  character  of  that  illustrious  man.  A  sub- 
lime genius,  an  uninterrupted  and  zealous  pursuit  of 
truth,  an  indefatigable  application,  an  invincible  pa- 
tience, a  sincere  piety,  and  a  subtile  and  lively  wit  con- 
spired to  establish  his  fame  upon  the  most  lasting  foun- 
dation."! 

The  character  of  Augustin  is  thus  drawn  by  the  bi. 
shop  of  St.  Asaph,  a  prelate  preeminently  distinguish- 
ed for  his  talents,  literature  and  candour.  "  He  was  in 
his  day  a  burning  and  sliining  light;  and  he  has  been 
ever  since,  by  his  writings,  one  of  the  brightest  lumi- 
naries of  the  Latin  church.  A  man  of  warm  unaffected 
piety,  of  the  greatest  natural  talents,  and  the  highest 
attainments;  exercised  in  the  assiduous  study  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  replete  with  sacred  learning,  and  with- 
al deeply  versed  in  that  Pagan  lore,  in  which,  however 
it  may  have  been  of  late  shamefully  calumniated,  the 
soundest  divines  have  always  been  the  greatest  pro- 
ficients. In  polite  literature  he  was  the  rival,  in  science 
and  philosophy  the  superior  of  his  great  contemporary, 
St.  Jerome." 

*  The  words  of  Erasmus,  as  quoted  by  Lardner,  to  which  scarce- 
ly any  translation  can  dp  justice,  are  these:  Ingenii  felicitas  prorsus 
eral  Incomparabilis,  sive  spectes,  acumen,  vel  obscurissima  facile 
penetrans,  sive  capacis  memoriae  fidem,  sive  vim  quandam  menlis 
indefaut;ahilcm.  Ad  docendum  semper  erat  paratus,  non  alitor 
quam  avidus  negotiator  ad  lucrum.  Aderat  interim  miranda  qu?c> 
dam  animi  lenitas 

t  Moiheim's  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  i.  p.  252. 


w 

Thus  it  is  seen,  that  the  name  of  this  Father  is  en- 
polled  with  lustre  on  the  page  of  history.  Even  the ' 
hand  of  the  infidel  Gibbon  binds  a  wreath  of  honour 
round  his  venerable  brow.  To  be  praised  by  the  pen 
of  Lardner  is  praise  indeed;  a  writer  who  was  distin- 
guished for  his  candour,  patience  of  research,  love  of 
truth,  and  coolness  of  judgment.  Erasmus  and  Mo- 
sheim  are  immortalizing  advocates,  and  who  would 
not  wish  to  be  praised,  I  niay  safely  ask,  by  the  cele- 
brated Roffens?  But  what  are  we  to  think  of  Mr.  Ro- 
binson, who,  with  a  spirit  more  fell  than  infidelity  it- 
self possesses,  has  made  a  laboured  and  insidious  at- 
tempt to  traduce  the  character  of  the  far-famed  Au- 
gustin?  Yes,  sure  enough,  what  are  we  to  think?  A 
Christian  minister,  and  yet  less  just,  less  candid  than 
an  infidel — a  Christian  minister,  and  yet  "  an  accuser 
of  the  bretliren!" 

So  long  as  the  light  and  verity  of  history  guard  the 
fame  of  Augustin  against  detraction,  so  long  they  will 
continue  to  reflect  infamy  upon  his  defamer,  whether  a 
Petit,  a  Voltaire,  or  a  Robinson. 

It  is  easy  to  see  the  real  design  of  our  historian  in 
pouring  calumny  upon  the  memory  of  this  Father. 
Augustin  had  opposed  the  Manicheans  whom  Mr.  Ro- 
binson has  taken  into  fellowship  with  British  Unitarian 
Baptists;  he  had  waged  incessant  war  with  the  Pela- 
gians and  Donatists,  whom  our  leai-ned  historian  takes 
the  liberty  to  say  were  Anabaptists,  and  in  whose  reli- 
gious  tenets  he  saw  an  approximation  to  his  own 
creed;  he  had  borne  repeated  and  solemn  testimonies 
to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  as  something  univer- 
sally observed  in  the  church,  and  as  being  of  apostolical 
origin.  These  were  crimes  never  to  be  forgiven;  and 
the  only  way  left  for  destroying  the  force  of  Augustin's 
testimony,  was  to  assail  his  reputation  by  detraction, 
and  thus  to  reduce,  if  possible,  his  high  estimation  in 
the  woi;ld,  and  blast  for  ever  his  well  earned  farne. 
This  is  ail  Mi*.  Robinson  could  hope  to  do,  and  \tt 

M 


90 

attempts  nothing  more.  But  the  fame  of  Augustin, 
like  a  bulwark,  impregnable  and  resistless  on  all 
points,  mocks  the  feebleness  of  his  assaults,  and  lifts 
its  towering  head  for  immortality. 

See  then  the  strength  of  the  ground  we  occupy  in 
this  controversy!  Augustin's  testimony  in  favour  of 
the  custom  of  baptizing  infants  cannot  be  impeached^ 
cannot  be  destroyed.  It  presents  the  stability,  the 
prominence,  the  majesty  of  the  promontory,  which  de- 
fies alike  the  surge  that  beats  on  its  base  and  the 
tempest  that  bursts  on  its  summit;  it  cannot  be  shaken. 

Out  of  the  numerous  and  very  clear  attestations 
borne  by  this  Father  to  the  practice  of  baptizing  in- 
fants,  I  will  select  a  few  only,  and  those  such  as  have 
itot  been  already  published  in  my  sermon  on  baptism. 

Augustinus  De  baptismo  contra  Donatistas  Lib.  4. 
prope  ad  finem. 

Sicut  autem  in  latrone,  quia  per  necessitatem  bap- 
tismus  defuit,  perfecta  salus  est;  quia  per  pietatem 
spiritualiter  aff  uit:  sic  etcum  ipso  praesto  est,  si  per  ne- 
cessitatem desit  quod  latroni  affuit,  perficitur  salus. 
Quod  traditum  tenet  universitas  ecclesise  cum  parvuli 
infantes  baptizantur;  qui  certe  nondum  possunt  corde 
credere  ad  justitiam,  et  ore  confiteri  ad  salutem,  quod 
latro  potuit:  quinetiam  flendo  et  vagiendo  cum  in  eis 
mysterium  celebratur;  ipsis  mysticis  vocibus  obstrc- 
punt.  Et  taraen  nuUlis  Christianorum  dixerit  eos  ina- 
niter  baptizari. 

Et  si  quisquam  in  hac  re  divinam  authoritatem 
quccrat  quanquam  quod  universa  tenet  Ecclesia,  nee 
Conciliis  institutum  sed  semper  retentum  est,  non  nisi 
auctoritate  Apostolica  traditum  rectissime  creditur: 
tamen  veraciter  conjicerepossumus  quidvaleat  inpar- 
vulis  baptismi  sacramentum  ex  circumcisione  carnis 
cjuam  prior  populus  accepit. 

,"  And  as  the  thief,  who  by  necessity  went  without 
baptism,  was  sayed,  because  by  his  piety  he  had  it 
spiritually:  so  where  baptism  is  had,  though  the  party 


91 

by  necessity  go  without  that  (faith)  which  the  thief 
Iiad,  yet  he  is  saved.  Which  the  whole  body  of  the 
church  holds  as  delivered  to  them  in  the  case  of  little 
infants  baptized^  who  certainly  cannot  yet  believe  with 
the  heart  to  righteousness,  or  confess  with  the  mouth 
tinto  salvation,  as  the  thief  could;  nay,  by  their  crying 
and  noise,  while  the  sacrament  is  administering,  they 
disturb  the  holy  mysteries;  and  yet  no  Christian  man  will 
say  they  are  baptized  to  no  purpose.  And  if  any  one 
do  ask  for  divine  authority  in  this  matter,  though  that 
which  the  -whole  church  practises,  and  which  has  not 
been  instituted  by  councils,  but  xvas  ever  in  use,  is  very 
reasonably  believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  thing  deliver- 
ed{or  ordered)  by  the  authority  of  the  apostles;  yet  we 
may  besides  take  a  true  estimate,  how  much  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the  circumcision 
which  God's  former  people  received." 

DE  LIBERO  AKBRITRIO,  LIB.  3.    C.  23. 

Quo  loco  etiam  illud  perscrutari  homines  .solent,  sa- 
cramentum  Baptismi  Christi  quid  parvulis  prosit;  cum 
CO  accepto  plerunque  moriuntur  priusquam  ex  eo 
quidquam  cognoscere  potuerunt. 

*'  On  which  head  men  are  wont  to  ask  this  question 
also;  what  good  the  sacrament  of  Christ's  baptism 
does  to  infants?  whereas  after  they  have  recei^'ed  it, 
they  often  die  before  ^hey  are  able  to  understand  any 
thing  of  it. 

DE  GENESI    AD   LITERAM,   LIB.  10.   C.  23. 

Consuetudo  tamen  matris  ecclesiae  in  baptizandis 
parvulis  nequaquam  spernenda  est,  ncque  ullo  modo 
superflua  deputanda,  nee  omnino  credenda  nisi  Aposto- 
lica  esset  traditio. 

"  But  the  custom  of  our  mother,  the  church,  in 
baptizing  infants  must  not  be  disregarded,  nor  be  ac- 
counted needless,  nor  believed  to  be  other  than  a  tradi- 
tion (or  order)  of  the  apostles." 


9.2 

Sect.  5.  Miscellaneous  Matters- 
It  is  really  curious  to  observe  with  what  facility  this^ 
UTiter  marches  ou  to  his  point,  in  the  way  of  conjec- 
ture, suggestion  and  assumption.  "  It  should  seem," 
says  he,  "that  the  baptism  of  children  was  first  practised 
by  a  small  obscure  sect  of  Gnostics  called  Cainites,  Cai- 
anites,  orGaianites,"  P.  247, 248.  It  should  seem! — yes, 
but  ^\^e  want  proof  that  such  was  the  fact,  and  it  was 
the  historian's  misfortune  to  have  none.  To  conceal 
this  defect,  he  amuses  his  reader  by  tracing  the  rise 
and  diffusion  of  Gnosticism.  He  remarks  that  it  rose 
cut  of  the  oriental  philosophy^  that  St.  Paul  consid- 
ered it  at  Corinth  as  the  serpent  in  Paradise^  2  Cor. 
;xi.  2,  3,  4,  and  that  the  Gnostics  were  the  heretical 
teachers  mentioned  by  St.  John,  i  Ep.  ii.  18, 19.  That 
St.  Paul  had  Gnosticism  in  his  eye  when  he  wrote  the 
forementioned  passage  is  as  far  from  being  ascertained, 
as  that  he  considered  it  the  serpent  in  paradise.  The 
first  errors  at  Corinth  were  an  accommodation  of  the 
gospel  to  the  Grecian  philosophy  and  Judaism.  St. 
John  had  various  sorts  of  heretics,  as  well  as  Gnostics, 
in  view,  when  he  wrote  his  epistle,  as  the  Docetee,  Ce- 
rinthians,  &c.  But  what  has  the  history  of  the  origin  and 
evolution  of  Gnosticism  to  do  in  this  controversy?  In 
doing  so,  however,  he  makes  (and  most  probably  in  mx- 
itation  of  Dr.  Priestley's  worthy  example)  another  asser- 
tion which  is  very  far  from  being  coincident  with  fact: 
it  is,  that  the  Gnostics,  "  during  the  two  first  centuries, 
were  the  only  heretics."  Every  person  acquainted  with 
the  New  Testament  and  the  history  of  early  opinions  in 
the  Christian  world,  knows  the  fact  to  be  otherwise.  Du- 
ring the  apostolic  age  there  were  several  sects;  the 
Docetas  or  phantasiastae,  who  denied  the  humanity  of 
Christ;  the  Cerinthians  and  Ebionites,  who  rejected  the 
doctrine  of  his  divinity,  but  admitted  his  humanity;  and 
the  Nicolaitans,  or  Gnostics,  who  affirmed  that  no- 
thing but  the  mere  knowledge  of  God  and  Christ  was 
necessary  to  salvati07i;  for  against  these  heresies  ha\it^ 


93 

Sit.  John  and  other  apostles  expressly  written.  Beside 
these,  there  were  the  Marcionites,  Encratites,  Carpocra- 
tians,  Valentians,  and  various  other  sects,  which  appear- 
ed  in  the  two  first  centuries,*  as  in  the  year  176,  or  177, 
Ireiioeus,  in  his  treatise  against  heretics^  book  1.  gives 
them,  contrary  to  what  Mr.  llobinson  asserts,  a  distinct 
classification.  Tertullian,  who  wrote  but  a  few  years 
later,  does  the  same  thing;  for  while  he  writes  against 
several  branches  of  the  Gnostic  sect,  he  attacks  other 
sectaries,  who  had  no  connection  whatever  with  Gnos- 
tics. The  Nazarenes  also  were  a  sect  entirely  and 
originally  distinguished  from  the  Ebionites  and  others 
now  mentioned,  in  as  much  as  their  opinions  were  or- 
thodox with  respect  to  the  trinity  and  other  important 
doctrines.  This  has  been  amply  evinced  in  Dr.  Jamie- 
son's  triumphant  reply  to  Dr.  Priestley's  History  of 
Early  Opinions. f  The  author's  bold  assertion  was 
ii:iade  and  defended  probably  with  a  view  to  shield  his 

*  Should  it  be  said  that  these  sects  originated  from  the  Gnos- 
tics, I  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  admitting  the  fact:  but  still  I  may 
remark,  that  though  they  had  one  common  origin,  they  were 
nevertheless  distinct  sects,  difl'ering  not  so  much  in  doctrine  as  in 
discipline  and  manners.  Thus  the  Marcionites,  Encratites  and 
other  sects  were  remarkable  for  an  austere  rigid  manner  of  life, 
while  the  Carpocratians  and  others  were  very  dissolute.  They  all 
denied  Christ's  divinity,  and  almost  every  distinguishing  doctrine 
of  Christianity. 

t  The  western  Socinian  Baptists,  New-lights,  Halcyonists,  Sha- 
kers, Sec.  are  weak  enough  to  think  Dr.  Priestley  has  triumphed 
in  the  controversy  which  he  so  ardently  waged  against  the  doc- 
trines of  grace:  but  let  them  read  Dr.  Jamieson's  Vindication  of 
the  Doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  The  Primitive  Faith 
concerning  The  Deity  of  Christ,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Priestley's 
History  of  Early  Opinions,  and  they  will  sigh  if  not  blush  for  their 
champion  ^nd  their  cause.  This  very  luminous  and  elaborate  work 
perfectly  paralyzed  the  gaftcous  doctor;  for  though  it  was  the  very 
thing  he  had  explicitly  challenged,  and  though  he  Uved  several 
years  after  its  pubUcation,  yet  he  never  dared  to  fulfil  his  pledge 
to  the  public  by  answering  it.  In  a  calm  and  undisturbed  retreat 
upon  the  Susquehanna,  he  wrote  and  published  several  considera- 
ble works,  but  nothing  like  an  answer  to  Dr.  Jamieson's  virKljca- 
tion. 


94 

brother  Manicheans  and  other  sects  from  the  imputation 
of  h'^resy;  and  thus,  Uke  Dr.  Priestley,  to  render  the 
idea  popular,  or  at  least  plausible,  that  the  Socinian 
creed  was  the  one  adopted  by  Christians  generally  in 
the  two  first  centuries.  But  as  Dr.  Jamieson  has  pro- 
ven in  the  work  referred  to,  that  both  the  statement 
and  the  inference  are  false;  proving  beyond  the  power 
of  cavil,  that  there  were  other  heretics  besides  the 
Gnostics,  and  that  the  doctrines  of  Christians  through- 
out the  whole  world,  in  primitive  times^  were  evan- 
gelical,  in  opposition  to  Socinianism. 

He  again  remarks,  "  The  Caianites  seem  to  be  of 
the  Egyptian,  not  of  the  Asian  class  of  Gnostics: 
but  the  first  book  in  defence  of  the  efficacy  of  bap- 
tism, and  against  the  baptism  of  little  ones,  is  direct- 
ed agamst  both  Caianites  of  Egypt  and  Quintillianists 
of  Greece."  In  proof  of  this  statement  he  refers  to 
Tertuliian's  Book  De  Baptismo,  c,  1.;  but,  as  it 
should  seem,  rather  unfortunately  for  the  historian,  there 
is  not  the  shadow  of  evidence  there,  or  any  where  else, 
that  this  book  was  written  against  either  the  Caianites 
of  Egypt  or  the  Quintillianists  of  Greece.  This  book 
on  baptism  was  written  to  arrest  the  progress  of  a 
heresy  which  had  been  founded  by  Quintilla,  a  female 
heresiarch  and  preacher  who  had  sprung  up  among, 
or  emerged  from  the  Caianites,  and,  as  Tertullian  says, 
had  seduced  a  great  number  of  persons  into  the  be- 
lief of  her  doctrines.  As  to  the  insinuation  of  the  au- 
thor, that  she  either  introduced  the  baptism  of  little 
ones,  or  at  least  contemplated  the  measure,  there"  is 
not  the  semblance  of  truth  in  it.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  certain  that  one  of  the  most  prominent  dogmas  of 
this  extravagant  and  fanatical  woman  was,  that  exter- 
nal baptism  was  wholly  minecessary^  and  that  faith 
alone  was    sufficient  for  salvation,*    Neither   is  it 

*  It  is  indeed  true,  that  Tertullian,  speaking  of  the  practice  of 
a  female's  teaching  and  baptizin'j;,  has  these  words,  c.  17.  Petulant 
liu  cmicm  mulicrum  r/ux  ufsurpavit  doccrc,  uti(]ue  non   etiam  ttv 


.95 

Q-ue  that  this  book  was  written  against  the  baptism 
of  little  ones,  as  Mr.  Robinson  groundlessly  asserts. 
We  have  already  seen  that  TertuUian  opposed  only 
the  hasty  baptism  of  orphans,  or  the  children  of  slaves 
or  poor  pagans,  where  sponsors  became  necessary 
and  that  in  ordinary  cases  he  approved  of,  and  reason- 
ed from  the  practice  of  baptizing  infants  as  a  fact  gene- 
rally prevalent  in  the  Christian  world. 

But  indeed  it  is  quite  unnecessary  to  attempt  a 
refutation  of  the  author's  assertions;  for  after  all  his 
conjectures,  guesses  and  specious  displays  of  histori- 
cal fact,  he  is  weak  enough  to  acknowledge  he  knows 
nothing  about  the  matter.  Mark  his  words!  "  It  is  im- 
possible to  say  any  thing  upon  the  baptism  of  children 
among  the  Gnostics,  when  and  where  it  originated, 

guendijus  sibi  fiariet,  nisi,  si  quae  Jiova  bestia  avenerit  simitis  pris- 
tine: ut  quemadmodum  ilia  baptismum  auferebat,  ita  aliqua  per 
se  eum  comferat.  But  the  only  sentence  here  which  can  refer  to 
Quintilla,  Junius  readsthus:  Si  noim  (nimirum,mulier)  besticsx^ene- 
Ttt  similis  pristi7i<e;  and  \tvy  justly  remarks,  that  the  author's  us- 
ing the  word  pristinx  seems  to  intimate  that  the  reference  was  to 
Prisca  or  Priscilla,  who,  with  Maximilla,  was  a  prophetess  of  the 
heretical  Montanus  and  the  Prepuzians. 

This,  indeed,  shows  very  clearly  that  TertuUian  waS  not  then- 
speaking  of  Quintilla.  Besides  this,  there  is  abundant  evidence  in 
the  preceding  chapters,  that  he  was  writing  against  various  heresies 
destructive  of  baptism;  first  treating  of  the  subject  generally,  and 
afterwards  responding  to  distinct  questions:  Diximus  quantum  me- 
diocritate  nostrae  licuit  de  U7uversis,  qua  baptismi  rcligionern  stru- 
unt,  nunc  ad  reliquum  statuni  ejus  (eque,  ut  potero,  progrediar  de 
quxstiunculis  quibusdam,  c.  10.  After  pursuing  the  plan  thus  pro- 
posed, he  says  again,  c.  13.  Hie  ergo  scelestissime  illi  provocant 
qucestiones;  and  having  dispatched  these  very  mischievousquestions 
in  the  succeeding  chapters,  he  conies,  in  the  I7ih  chapter,  to  conr 
elude  his  subject  by  giving  some  advice  relative  to  the  practice  of 
administering  and  receiving  baptism:  Siiperest  ad  concludevdam 
materiolam  de  obseruatione  quoque  dandi  et  accipiendi  baptismum 
c'jmmonefacere. 

Now  it  is  evident  that  every  pernicious  error  which  he  contro- 
verts, and  every  wicked  question  to  which  he  responds  could  not 
have  existed  in  the  creed  of  Quintilla  and  her  disciples,  as  any  one 
may  see   who  reads  this-  treatise  respecting  baptism.  But  what 


96 

-ioJiethfr  it  were  only  proposed^  or  really  practised  ^  how 
far  it  extendedyand  by  what  means,  or  at  what  moment 
it  found  its  way  into  the  CathoHc  church:  but  there  is 
no  hazard  in  affirming  that,  towards  the  close  of  the 
fourth  century,  it  was  first  brought  into  public  by  Gre- 
gory Nazianzen,  that  it  became  agreeable  to  the  clergy, 
as  a  relief  from  the  inconveniencies  of  the  catachumen 
state;  that  it  was  the  standing  mode  of  baptizing,  fca' 
many  certuries,  in  both  the  Greek  and  Roman  Catho- 
lic churches;  and  that  it  became  popular  in  proportion 
as  fraud  beguilcci,  or  as  civil  power  forced  the  reluc- 
tant laity  to  yield  to  it.     Ibid. 

Our  learned  historian,  after  all  his  proteuform  move- 
ments, is  compelled  to  own  that  he  really  had  no  in- 
formation relating  to  the  practice  of  infant  baptism 
among  the  Gnostics;  either  as  to  the  -when  and  the 

seems  to  me  decisive  is,  that  although  Tertullian  accuses  Quintilla 
of  having  attempted  to  teach,  he  utters  not  a  syllable  of  her  un- 
dertaking to  baptize;  and  indeed  the  reverse  is  manifest. 

His  words,  taken  from  c.  i.  (the  very  one  to  which  Mr.  Robinson 
refers  us  for  proof)  are  these:  Atque  adeo  nuper  conversata  istip 
qusedam  de  Caiana  haeresi  vipera  venenatissimu  doctrijia  sua  ple- 
rosque  rapuit,  imprimis  baptismum  destruens  plane  sequndam  na- 
turam:  nam  fere  viperae  et  aspides,  ipsique  reguli  serp^ntes  arida 
et  inaquosa  sectantur.  Sed  nos  pisciculi  secundum  l^J^vi  nostrum 
iesum  Christum  in  aqua  nascimur.  Nee  aliter  quam  in  aqua  per- 
manendo  salvi  sumus.  Ita  Quintilla  monstrosissima,  cui  nee  inte- 
gre  quidem  docendi  jus  erat,  optimenotatjpisciculos  necare  de  aqua 
auferans. 

"  And  thus,  indeed,  it  happened:  a  certain  viperess  of  the  Cainian 
heresy,  who,  having  turned  about  in  that  manner,  led  away  a  mul- 
titude of  people  with  her  most  poisonous  doctrine;  a  first  objectof 
which  was  obviously  the  destruction  of  baptism  in  its  substance: 
just  as  vipers,  asps  and  basilisks  xxsvLdWy  frequent  dry  and  unii'ater- 
ed  places.  But  we,  little  fish,  are  regenerated  in  the  water  accor- 
ding  to  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  the  Son  of  God.  Nor  are  we 
otherwise  safe  than  by  continuing  in  the  water.  Thus  Quintilla, 
that  monster  of  a  woman,  to  whom  the  right  of  teaching  does  not 
properly  belong,  makes  it  an  object  of  special  aim  to  kill  the  little 
fisli,  taking  them  out  of  the  ivuter."  N.  B.  /;t'u5  is  a  name  taken  from 
the  Sybiliine  verses,  and  vulgarly  applied  to  Jesus  Christ,  thus:  ., 


97 

where  it  had  originated,  or  whether  it  were  only  pro- 
posed, or  were  really  practised;  and  yet  he  would, 
contrary  to  fact,  contrary  to  his  own  conviction,  insinu- 
ate, and  even  affect  to  prove  from  Tertullian,  that  it 
was  first  practised  by  a  small  obscure  sect  of  Gnos- 
tics called  Cainites.  Such  strange  conduct,  to  say 
the  least,  would  seem  to  infuse  a  doubt  that  the  au- 
thor did  not  possess  all  that  candour  and  impartiality 
which  became  a  historian. 

He  is  equally  uncertain,  it  seems,  "  bi/  what  means 
and  at  what  moment  it  found  its  way  into  the  Catholio 
church."  Indeed,  this  confession  is  what  I  had  not 
looked  for,  and  does  but  little  credit  to  the  author, 
when  it  is  recollected  that  he  asserts,  p.  198,  199.  in 
reference  to  the  affair  of  Fidus,  "  It  is  a  fact  that  dedi- 
cating children  to  God  by  baptism  was  first  heard  of 
in  Africa;  "and  still  more  particularly,  *'  It  doth  not  appear 
that  infants  were  baptized  at  Carthage,  or  any  where 
else,  except  in  the  country  where  Fidus  lived."  He 
had  already  fixed  the  time,  the  place,  and  the  means 
ofits  getting  into  the  Catholic  church,  and  yet  he  here 
declares  it  to  be  impossible  to  say  any  thing  about  it. 
This  has  very  much  the  aspect  of  that  ornamental  at- 
tribute of  style  called  self-contradiction,  and  will  excite 
an  apprehension,  in  most  readers,  that  the  learned 
historian,  after  all  his  laborious  research,  was  utterly  at 
a  loss  to  know  what  to  say  on  the  subject,  and  that  from 
the  poverty  of  his  materials  he  was  compelled  to  sketch 
annals  without  facts,  documents,  or  dates. 

But  whatever  uncertainty  Mr.  Robinson  may 
choose  to  express,  or  whatever  agri  somnia  vana,  fic- 
kle distempered  fancies  he  may  throw  out  as  facts, 
it'^  is  nevertheless  a  well  established  fact,  that  infant 
baptism  was  practised  in  the  Catholic  church  before 
the  council  of  Carthage,  not  only  in  Africa,  but  also 
in  Asia  and  Europe;  the  proof  of  which  I  will  briefly 
lay  before  my  readers  in  the  subjoined  details  and 
documents. 

N 


98 

Not  to  mention  the  testimony  of  Clement  and  Her- 
mas,  which  have  considerable  claim  to  notice,  as  being 
very  ancient  and  giving  a  pretty  distinct  report,  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  as  early  as  the  year  140,  alludes  to  the  fact 
of  infant  baptism  in  these  words,  which  are  taken  from 
his  first  apology; 

"  Several  persons  among  us,  of  sixty  and  seventy 
years  old,  and  of  both  sexes,  who  were  discipled  or 
made  disciples  to  Christ  in  their  childhood,  do  continue 
uncorrupted."* 

In  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  application  of 
baptism  to  persons  of  every  age  is  very  clearly  im- 
plied, thus: 

TIJV   X«Tflt   fol^KOC   TTOC^iKcl^OfAiV   TTi^irOfX^V ,   (»AA»  TTVgU^OtTJJtJjV, 

dvTvjVj  iTTiiioiv  otfAA^TooKo)  iyiyoviTfXiv f  Sicl  to  sAgo?  to  ttocpx 
Toy  @io\j  ihol(iof/-iv  >o  7rcc(Tiv  IcpgTov  oi^oia?  Ka^^^xvuv. 

"  We  also,  who  by  him  have  had  access  to  God, 
have  not  received  this  <:arnal  circumcision,  but  the 
spiritual  circumcision,  which  Enoch  and  those  like 
him  observed.  And  we  have  received  by  baptism 
by  the  mercy  of  God,  because  we  were  sinners:  and 

IT  IS  ENJOINED  TO  ALL  PERSONS  TO  RECEIVE  IT 

IN  THE  SAME  WAY,"  namely,  in  baptism.  And  in 
another  work  we  meet  with  this  question;  "  JVhy^  if 
circumcision  be  a  good  thing,  we  do  not  use  it  as  well 
as  the  Jews  did?''''  which  he  thus  answers;  "  IFe  are 
circumcised  by  baptism  with  Chrisfs  circumcision,^'' 

These  short  extracts  will  make  it  obvious  that  when 
Justin  wrote,  which  was  about  forty  years  after  the 
apostolic  age,  there  were  considerable  numbers  of  per- 
sons, both  men  and  women,  who  had  been  made  disci- 

*  Justin  M.  Apol.  I'fvulgo  2da.)  prope  ab  initio.  Dialog,  curn 
Try  phone  et  Quest,  ad  orthodox. 


99 

pies  in  infancy  sixty  and  seventy  years  before  that  time, 
that  is,  as  far  back  in  the  apostolic  age  as  the  year  seventy 
or  eighty  of  the  Christian  era,  and  consequently  must 
have  been  baptized,  for  to  none  other  than  disciples 
was  baptism  ever  given;  that  it  was  the  opinipn  of  Jus- 
tin as  well  as  the  Christians  of  that-age,  that  the  spiri- 
tual  circu7ncision,  which  was  identified  with  baptism, 
succeeded  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  and  that  it  was 
enjoined  to  all  per  sons  ^  and  consequently  to  infants  as 
well  as  to  adults,  to  receive  the  spiritual  circumcision  or 
baptism,  in  as  much  as  all,  both  old  and  young,  were  de- 
filed with  original  sin,*  and  could  be  saved  no  other 
way  than  by  that  spiritual  circumcision  which  was  re- 
ceived by  baptism;  and  that  as  the  Jews  received  the 
former  circumcision,  which  applied  equally  to  infants 
and  adults,  so  Christians  at  that  period  were  circumcis- 
ed by  baptism  with  Chrisfs  circumcision,  and  of  course 
their  infant  children  must  have  shared  also  in  this 
spiritual  circumcision  or  baptism.  These  mferences 

*  iThat  Justin  Martyr  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin, 
he  himself  has  declared,  when,  speaking  of  the  undertaking  of  the 
Saviour,  he  says,  "  He  did  this  for  mankind  which  by  Adam  was 
fallen  under  death,  and  under  the  guile  of  the  serpent,  beside  the 
particular  cause  which  each  man  has  of  sinning."  Dial,  cum  Try- 
phone.  And  as  to  the  manner  of  man's  deliverance  from  the  sin 
of  his  nature,  he  says  explicitly  that  it  was  by  baptism.  "  Then 
they  are  brought  by  us  to  some  place  where  there  is  water,  and 
they  are  regenerated  according  to  this  rite  of  regeneration  by 
which  we  ourselves  were  regenerated;  for  then  they  are  washed 
with  water  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all  things,  and 
of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  Christ 
says  "  unless  you  be  regenerated,  you  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven"  and  every  body  knows  it  is  impossible  for  those  that 
are  once  generated  (or  born)  to  enter  again  into  their  mother's 
womb."  Just.  Apolo.  1st  (Vulgo  2da.)  ad  Antoninum  Pium.  From  a 
comparison  of  these  two  passages  I  am  allowed  to  infer,  that  it 
was  clearly  impossible  that  Justin  should  not  have  believed  in  m- 
fiint  as  well  as  adult  regeneration  or  bafitism,  if  he  believed  at  all, 
as  we  know  he  did,  in  the  salvation  of  infants.  These  and  some  of 
the  succeeding  testimonies  are  taken  from  Mr.  Wail's  Hist'orv  of 
Infant  Baptism. 


100 

are  fair,  and,  as  I  think,  unavoidable.  Tlic  objection 
which  is  opposed  by  Baptist  writers  to  the  first  men- 
tioned fact,  namely,  that  i^ira^iim  does  often  signify 
more  than  mere  infancy,  and  consequently  that  the 
persons  mentioned  by  Justin  might  have  been  such 
children  when  they  were  made  disciples  as  could  be 
taught  and  believe  for  themselves,  has  really  no 
weight,  because  the  word,  in  its  first  and  most  com- 
mon meaning,  signifies  infants,  and  of  course  ought  t© 
be  so  understood,  unless  sufficient  reason  appear  from 
Justin's  use  of  it  to  induce  us  to  reject  such  meaning 
and  adopt  a  less  common  or  figurative  signification: 
and  with  Baptists,  who  stickle  for  primary  meanings, 
this  reason  should^be  omnipotent. 

About  the  year  1 76,  and  most  probably  as  early  as 
1G7,  Iren8eus,  who  had  been  bred  in  Asia  under  the 
instruction  of  Polycarp  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  but 
was  then  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France,  delivers  a  very 
convincing  testimony  to  the  practice  of  baptizing  in- 
fants. 

Irenaeus  adversus  Hereses,  lib.  2.  c.  39. 

Omnes  enim  venit  per  semet  ipsum  salvare;  omnes 
inquam  qui  per  eum  renascuntur  in  Deum,  infantes,  et 
parvulos,  et  pueros,  et  juvenes,  et  seniores. 

"  He  (Christ)  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself;  all, 
I  say,  who  are  regenerated  unto  Gody  (baptized)  in- 
JantSy  and  little  onesy  and  children,  and  youths,  and  el- 
der persons. 

The  phrase  regenerated  to  God  was  in  the  language 
of  this  Father,  and  all  other  writers  of  that  age,  descrip- 
tive of  the  fact  of  having  been  baptized.  In  no  other 
sense  did  they  ever  use  it.  Thus  Irenaeus  always  uses 
the  words:  as  for  instance,  Adv.  Hereses,  lib.  3.  c.  19. 
Ft  iterum,  potestatem  regenerationis  in  Deum  deman- 
dans  discipulis,  dicebat  eos:  Euntes  docete  omnes 
gtntes  baptizantes  eos  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii  et 
Spiritus  Sancti — "  And  again  Christ  confiding  to  his 
disciples  the  authority  of  regenerating  unto  God,  said 


101 

unto  them,  Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.^^  About  forty  years  before  the  time  of  Irenaeus, 
we  see  Justin  Martyr  more  than  once  use  the  word 
regenerate  for  baptize:  thus,   ETrgiTc*  ^yovrai  v(p'  )jjw«y 

ivOflt  ucTft)^  f5"<,  Koti  T^OTTov  dvxvyiWYiffiug  OV  KOtl  t^fJktl?  OiVTo) 
OiViyivvtjB'yifXiv,  dvccyivvuvrxi.  Ett'  ovof/'Oi.ro?  yoc^  tow  Tlocr^og 
T«v  oA«y  ii  C^tcirorov  0€ow,  >^  tou  2a»T»j^of  jJjwwv  I)j(rov  X^jfou, 

X«*  rivgUjlAOtTO?   OtJ^/oW   TO    €V    TW    UdTotTI    To't£   AoWT^OV    TTO/OUVTOtl. 

Apol.  prima  (vulgo  2da)  ad  Antoninum  Pium . 

"  Then  they  are  brought  by  us  to  some  place  where 
there  is  water;  and  they  are  regenerated  according  to 
this  rite  of  regeneration,  by  which  we  ourselves  were 
regenerated;  for  then  they  are  washed  with  water  in 
the  name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all  things,  and 
of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 
And  he  soon  afterwards  uses  it  in  the  same  sense.  See 
my  Sermon  on  Baptism. 

In  the  passages  already  quoted  from  Tertullian,  the 
reader  will  recollect  that  the  word  nascor  (to  be  born) 
is  often  used  by  that  Father  for  to  be  baptized;  but 
in  one  instance  he  uses  the  very  word  renascor  {to 
be  regenerated)  which  is  the  one  here  employed 
by  Irenaeus  to  describe  being  baptized.  This  writer 
very  frequently  speaks  of  martyrdom  as  a  baptism, 
calling  it  lavacrum  sanguinis,  the  baptism  of  blood, 
and  always  uses  the  very  same  plirases  to  describe  it 
which  he  does  in  describing  the  baptism  of  water:  and 
in  his  Scorpiacum  ad  Gnosticos,  c.  15,  he  thus  speaks 
of  St.  Paul's  martyrdom  or  baptism  of  blood:  Tunc 
Paulus  civitatis  Romanse  consequitur  nativitatem, 
quum  illic  martyrii  renascitur  generositate.  "  Then 
Paul  obtains  regeneration  (baptism)  at  the  city  of 
Rome,  when  there  he  is  regenerated  (baptized)  by  a 
glorious  martyrdom."  We  have  already  seen  Cyprian 
describe  baptism  by  the  phrase  renati  et  signo  Christi 
signati,  "  regenerated  and  marked  with  the  sign  of 
Christ."  i.  e.  baptized  and  marked  with  the  name  of 


102 

Christ  according  to  Rev.  vii.  2,  3.  and  xiv.  1.  Indeed 
the  Fathers  always  apply  the  word  in  that  sense,  and 
cite  John  iii.  5.  to  prove  the  propriety  of  the  applica- 
tion, as  might  be  shown  in  various  instances  from 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Jerome, 
and  Austin.  And  besides,  Irenseus  testifies  to  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  by  treating  of  spiritual  circumcision  as 
succeeding  to  the  circumcision  of  the  flesh,  and  call- 
ing it  the  circumcision  of  Christ,  or  baptism. 

We  have  already  reviewed  at  large  the  testimony  of 
Tertullian  and  of  Origen,  and  need  not  therefore  re- 
peat it  here,  as  it  is  in  the  recollection  of  the  reader,  or 
can  easily  be  recalled.  Let  us  now  apply  the  foremen- 
tioned  facts  to  the  case  before  us,  and  form  our  esti- 
mate. Justin  Martyr,  once  a  Heathen  philosopher,  and 
respectable  for  his  talents  and  erudition,  is  converted 
to  the  faith  of  Christianity  thirty  years  after  the  apos- 
tles; had  seen  and  been  conversant  with  many  Chris- 
tians of  the  apostolic  age,  and  consequently  must  have 
been  adequately  informed  respecting  the  usages  of  the 
primitive  church,  delivered  about  forty  years  after  the 
apostles  an  unembarrassed  testimony  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism.  Irenaeus,  born  according  to  Dodwell  in  the 
year  97  after  Christ,  and  consequently  within  the  apos- 
tolic age,  educated  in  Asia  by  Polycarp,  St.  John's 
disciple,  and  a  man  of  genius,  learning  and  research, 
and  the  contemporary  of  Justin  Martyr;  and  after  his 
becoming  bishop  of  Lyons,  about  sixty-seven  years 
after  the  apostles,  gives  the  world  clear  and  satisfactory 
attestations  to  the  fact  of  baptizing  infants.  Tertullian, 
the  contemporary  of  Irenasus,  but  younger,  and  living 
to  the  year  120^  a  man  of  sublime  genius,  and  flowing 
eloquence,  and  literary  distinction,  at  first  a  Heathen 
philosopher,  and  afterwards  a  Christian  minister  and 
presbyter  at  Carthage,  asserts,  in  the  clearest  and  most 
satisfactory  manner,  the  generally  prevailing  custom  of 
baptizing  infants. about  100  years  after  the  apostles-— 


and  then  Origen,  whom  Dr.  Lardner  eulogizes  as  "  a 
bright  light  of  the  church  and  one  of  those  rare  person- 
ages that  have  done  honour  to  human  nature,''''  the  con- 
temporary of  Tertullian,  eminent  for  his  talents  and 
literary  acquirements,  and  one  who  was  bred  at  Al- 
exandria in  Egypt,  travelled  through  Italy,  Greece, 
Cappadocia,  and  Arabia,  and  spent  the  greater  part  of 
his  life  in  Syria  and  Palestine,  and  who  of  course  was 
abundantly  qualified  for  saying  what  the  usages  of  the 
church  universal  were,  has,  about  a  hundred  and  ten 
years  after  the  apostles,  given  many  explicit  testimo- 
nies in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  It  is  therefore  a  con- 
clusion confirmed  by  a  regular  and  incorrupt  series  of 
historical  facts,  that  infant  baptism  had  an  existence  in 
the  Catholic  church,  from  the  times  of  the  apostles 
down  to  the  period  of  Cyprian,  whose  testimony  is 
full  in  proof  that  infant  baptism  was  the  prevailing 
custom  of  the  Catholic  church  in  his  day.  He  was 
born  in  185,  and  died  :254,  and  consequently  was  con- 
temporary, not  only  with  Tertullian,  but  also  with 
Cyprian.  Before  Origen  it  is  probable  I  should  have 
mentioned  the  author  of  the  Apostolical  Constitutions, 
who  bears  a  very  explicit  testimony  to  infant  baptism, 
as  the  standing  custom  of  his  time,  in  these  words: 
*'  Baptize  your  'infanJts,  and  bring  them  up  in  tlie  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord;  for  he  says,  suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not." 
This  work  is  supposed  to  have  been  written  in  the 
close  of  the  second  or  in  the  beginning  of  the  third 
century,  and  indeed  there  is  internal  evidence  to  make 
it  certain  that  it  must  have  been  written  before  the  age 
of  Origen.  Exceptions,  I  know,  have  been  taken  to 
the  genuineness  and  date  of  this  book;  but  it  is  now  and 
always  has  been  received  as  authority  by  the  best  and 
most  learned  wTiters.  How  far  the  opinion  of  Dr. 
Jamieson,  who  quotes  it  in  his  controversy  with  Dr. 
Priestley,  may  have  weight  with  Baptist  readers,  I  can- 
not tell;  but  I  well  l^now  that  the  opinion  of  Grotius, 


104 

which  is  in  favour  of  its  genuineness,  ought  to  be  para- 
mount evidence  with  our  Baptist  brethren.* 

Thus  we  see  the  certain  and  widely  extended  ex- 
istence of  infant  baptism  before  and  at  the  time  of 
Cyprian,  and  that  too  from  the  very  age  of  the  apos- 
tles, by  a  train  of  historical  evidence  which  can- 
not be  questioned  without  implicating  the  identity  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  now  used  with  those  in  the  hands 
of  the  apostles;  for  it  is  by  those  very  witnesses  that 
we  ascertain  ou^s  to  be  the  same  scriptures  which 
were  used  in  the  apostolical  age,  and  from  that  down 
to  the  period  of  the  council  at  Carthage. 

Oiu*  author  alleges,  however,  "there  can  be  no 
hazard  in  affirming  that  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century  it  was  first  brought  into  public  by  Gregory 
Nazianzen."  But  upon  what  evidence  does  this  asser- 
tion of  the  learned  historian  rest? — On  a  passage  from 
Gregory  Nazianzen's  fortieth  oration,  I  presume,  for 
it  is  all  he  condescends  to  quote;  which  passage  Piedo- 
baptists  usually  cite  for  a  very  different  purpose,  and 
cannot  prove  the  first  introduction  of  infant  baptism  be- 
fore the  public.  JVo  dariger  hi  affirming!  What!  when  the 
Apologies  of  Justin  Martyr,  the  books  of  Irenaeus,  the 
writings  of  Tertullian  and  the  Apostolic  Constitutions 
had  long  ere  this  been  before  the  world? — When 
the  Homilies  and  Comments  of  the  famous  Origen 
had  given  publicity  to  the  practice  as  early  as  220 
— When  our  learned  historian,  who  at  one  time  would 
induce  a  belief  that  the  baptism  of  infants  originated  in 
i¥frica  in  the  district  of  Fidus,  at  another  that  it  was 
practised  by  a  small  obscure  sect  of  Gnostics  called 
Caianites,  and  then  declared  that  it  was  impossible  to 
say  any  thing  about  it,  ^vhen  and  where  it  originated, 
or  by  what  means,  or  when  it  found  its  way  into  the 
Catholic  church,  goes  on  to  say,   that  there  is  no  ha- 

*  See  Dr.  Jamieson's  Vindication,  vol.  ii.  p.  230.  Grotius  in 
Matt.  xix.  where  the  above  passage  from  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
lions  is  quoted!. 


105 

ZAtd  in  affirming  that  towards  the  close  of  the  fourth 
century  it  was  first  brought  into  public  by  Gregory 
Nazianzen.  No  hazard,  indeed,  when  the  volumi- 
nous and  learned  works  of  Origcn  were  known  to  the 
whole  Christian  world! — When  Cyprian's  popular  and 
animating  writings  had,  as  early  as  157,  bestowed  no- 
toriety and  celebrity  on  the  practice,  and  which  had 
been  admired  and  read  every  where  in  the  Catholic 
church! 

But  beside  the  evidence  already  adduced  to  expose 
the  hazard  and  folly  of  such  affirmation,  I  will  now 
bring  forward  other  evidence  still  more  convincing. 
Ambrose  had  asserted  the  propriety  of  infant  baptism, 
and  even  introduced  the  fact  as  the  basis  of  argument 
in  the  controversies  of  the  day,  some  considerable  time 
before  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  Speaking  of  the 
Pelagian  hypothesis,  which,  among  other  things,  set 
forth  this,  that  the  injury  done  by  Adam  to  his  poste- 
rity was  exemplo^  nan  transitu^  rather  from  example, 
than  by  derivation  of  evil,  does  on  the  admission  of  such 
principle  infer  that  it  would  involve  evacuatio  baptis- 
matis  parvulorum  "  the  nullity  of  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants." 

In  his  L.  2.  de  Abraham,  patriarcha,  c.  11.  he  has 
these  words:  *'  For  a  very  good  reason  does  the  law 
command  the  males  to  be  circumcised  in  the  begin, 
ning  of  infancy,  even  the  bond  slave  born  in  the  house; 
because  as  circumcision  is  from  infancy,  so  is  the  dis- 
ease. No  time  ought  to  be  void  of  the  remedy,  be. 
cause  none  is  void  of  guilt,  &,c."  and  a  little  after  he 
adds,  "  Neither  a  proselyte  that  is  old,  nor  an  infant 
born  in  the  house,  is  excepted;  because  every  age  is 
obnoxious  to  sin,  and  therefore  every  age  is  proper  for 
the  sacrament."  This  he  applies  to  spiritual  circum- 
cision andbaptism^  and  then  subjoins,  "  both  the  home 
born  and  the  foreigner,  the  just  and  the  sinful,  must 
be  circumcised  by  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  so  as  not  to 
practise  sin  any  more:  for  no  person  comes  to  \\\j^ 

O 


106 

kingdom  of  heaven  but  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism." 
He  afterwards  closes  the  paragraph  with  these  words: 
Nisi  enim  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aquaet  Spiritu  sancto, 
non  potest  introire  in  regniim  Dei.  Utique  niilhim 
excipit:  non  infantem  non  aUqua  pcerventum  necessi- 
tate. Habeant  tamen  illam  opertam  poenarum  immuni- 
tatem,  nescio  an  habeant  regni  honorem.  "  For  unless 
a  person  be  born  again  of  xuater^  and  of  the  Holy  Spi- 
rit, he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  You  see 
he  excepts  no  persons,  not  an  infant,  not  one  that  is 
hindered  by  any  unavoidable  accident.  But  suppose 
that  such  have  that  freedom  from  punishment,  \vhich 
is  not  clear,  yet  I  question  whether  they  shall  have  the 
honour  of  the  kingdom." 

And  about  the  periodatwhich,or,at  most  soon  after  the 
period  which  Mr.  Robinson  fixes  for  its  public  intro- 
duction, what  a  blaze  of  evidence  bursts  on  the  scene  of 
inquir}'^,  when  we  open  the  writings  of  Chrysostom, 
Augustin  and  Jerome,  as  well  as  the  concessions  of 
their  opponents,  namely,  Pelagius,  Celestius,  the  Do- 
natists  and  others!  The  reader  will  allow  the  following 
examples  not  only  to  establish  the  fact  of  infant  bap- 
tism as  being  generally-  known  and  as  generally  practis- 
ed at  the  very  period  which  our  author  considers  the 
epoch  of  its  public  introduction;  but  also  to  throw  back 
the  illumination  of  this  period  upon  the  preceding  ages. 
First,  then,  Chrysostom,  who  died  in  407,  and  conse- 
quently must  have  flourished  and  written  in  the  close  of 
the  fourth  century.  In  his  homily  to  the  Neophyti,  we 
find  these  observations:  "  JFe  baptize  childreri^  although 
they  have  no  sin;"  that  is  actual  sin,  as  Augustin 
proves  in  opposition  to  the  Pelagians.  Again,  in  his 
40th  Homily  on  Genesis,  he  observes,  "  Circumcision 
was  to  be  given  on  the  eighth  day;  but  baptism  hath  no 
determinate  time,  but  it  is  lawful  that  one  in  infancy, 
or  one  in  middle  age,  or  one  in  old  age  do  receive  it." 

These  passages,  with  several  others  equally  pointed, 
imply  that  the  custom  was  commonly  observed. 


107     ^ 

The  testimony  of  Aiigustin  has  already  been  laid 
before  the  readers  and  need  not  be  repeated. 

Jerome,  who  died  in  420,  and  mustj  as  he  lived  to  a 
great  age,  ha\'e  flourished  in  his  vigor  about  the  very 
time  Mr.  Robinson  says  Gregory  delivered  his  famous 
oration  on  baptism,  abundantly  testifies  to  the  same 
fact.  Passing  over  most  of  the  citations  which  might 
be  made  from  this  father,  I  will  proceed  to  present  the 
reader  with  one  or  two  which,  from  the  circumstances 
giving  them  birth,  become  authorities  of  great  mo- 
ment. In  his  Homilia  in  Evangel.  Matt,  having  quo- 
ted John  vi.  58.  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  he  re- 
marks. Quod  testimonium  contra  Pelagii  blasphemias 
evidentissimum  atque  validissimum  est,  qui  asserere 
arrepta impietate  presumit,  non  propter  vitam,  sed  prop- 
ter regnum  coelorum  Baptismum  parvulos  conferren- 
dum,  "  which  is  a  most  clear  and  potent  testimony 
against  the  blasphemies  of  Pelagius,  who  with  daring 
impiety  presumes  to  assert,  that  baptism  is  to  be  con- 
ferred upon  infants,  not  for  salvation,  but  for  the  king- 
dom of  heaven." 

In  his  Dialogues  written  to  expose  Pelagianism, 
where  the  name  Critobulus  represents  a  Pelagian^  and 
Atticus  a  person  belonging  to  the  Catholic  church,  we 
find  the  following  passage: 

"  Crito.  Tell  me,  I  beseech  you,  and  free  me  from 
all  doubt;  for  what  reason  are  infants  baptized? 

u  Atticus.  That  in  baptism  their  sins  may  be  for- 
given. 

"Crito.  What  sin  have  they  incurred?  Is  any  one 
loosed  that  never  was  bound? 

u  Atticus,  having  offered  arguments  and  proof  to 
establish  the  point  in  question,  goes  on  to  answer,  "  x\U 
persons  are  held  obnoxious,  either  by  their  own,  or  by 
their  forefather  Adam's  sin.  He  that  is  an  infant  is  in 
baptism  loosed  from  the  bond  of  his  forefather;  he  that 
is  of  age  to  understand,  is  by  the  blood  of  Christ  freed 


108 

both  from  his  own  bond,  and  also  that  which  is  derived 
from  another.  And  that  you  may  not  think  that  I  un- 
'derstand  this  in  a  heretical  [or  heterodox]  sense;  the 
blessed  Martyr  Cyprian  (whom  you  pretend  to  have 
imitated  in  collecting  into  order  some  places  of  scrip- 
ture) in  the  epistle  which  he  writes  to  bishop  Fidus, 
about  the  baptizing  of  infants,  says  thus:  "  If,  then,  the 
greatest  offenders,  and  they  that  have  grievously  sinned 
against  God  before,  have,  when  they  afterwards  come  to 
believe,  forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and  no  person  is  kept 
off"  from  baptism  and  grace;  how  much  less  reason  is 
there  to  refuse  an  infant,  who,  being  newly  born,  has 
no  sin,  save  that,  being  descended  from  Adam,  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  he  has  from  his  very  birth  con- 
tracted the  contagion  of  the  death  anciently  threaten- 
ed," &c.* 

*'  That  holy  and  accomplished  person,  bishop  Au- 
gustin,  wrote  some  time  ago  to  Marcellinus  (who  was 
afterwards,  though  innocent,  put  to  death  by  the  heretics 
on  pretence  that  he  had  a  hand  in  Heraclius's  usurpa- 
tion) two  books  concerning  the  baptism  of  infants, 
against  your  heresy  by  which  you  would  maintain 
that  infants  are  baptized,  not  for  Xh^forgivetiess  of  sins, 
but  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven^  according  to  that  which 
is  UTitten  in  the  gospel.  Except  a  person  be  born 
again  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.'''' — ''  This  one  thing  I  will  say,  that 
this  discourse  may  at  last  have  an  end;  either  you 
must  set  forth  a  new  creed^  and  after  the  Father,  the 
Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  baptize  infants  unto  the  king- 
dom of  heaven;  or  else,  if  you  acknowledge  one  bap- 
tism for  infants  and  for  grown  persons,  you  must  own 
that  infants  are  to  be  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sins." 

These  extracts  make  a  few  things  unquestionably 
manifest,  namely,   that  the  letter  of  Cyprian  is  to  bfj; 

*  He  ^oes  on  to  recite  verbatim  the  whole  of  the  epistle  to  the. 
ciul,  us  it  is  given  page  83.  '• 


109 

considered  not  only  as  genuine,  but  as  expressing  the 
general  sense  of  the  orthodox  or  Catholic  church  res- 
pecting original  sin  and  the  baptism  of  infants,  both 
at  the  time  of  its  being  addressed  to  Fidus,  and  after- 
wards down  to  the  time  of  Jerome;  that  the  Pelagians, 
as  well  as  the  orthodox,  baptized  infants,  though  they 
differed  with  respect  to  the  design  or  object  of  such 
baptism;  the  first  contending  that  it  was  their  passport 
into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  the  last,  that  it  was  for 
their  personal  regeneration  and  the  remission  of  sins; 
and  that  both  parties  believed  iii  one  baptism  only  for 
adults  and  infants. 

These  facts  are  asserted  by  both  Jerome  and  Au- 
gustin  and  confessed  by  their  opponents,  Celesti- 
us  and  Pelagius,  as  will  appear  in  the  subjoined  do- 
cuments. 

In  the  council  held  at  Carthage  A.  D.  412.  Celes- 
tius  stood  his  trial  for  heresy.  From  theacts  of  that  coun- 
cil, as  cited  by  Augustin,  lib.  de  peccato  originali,  c. 
3,  4.  let  me  take  this  extract: 

"  AuRELius,  the  bishop,  said, '  Let  the  rest  of  the 
charge  be  read;''  and  there  was  read,  '  That  mfants 
when  they  are  born  are  in  the  same  state  that  Adam 
7vas  in  before  his  transgression.^ 

"AuRELius,  the  bishop,  said,  Did  you  ever  teach  so, 
Celestius,  that  infants  when  they  are  bom  are  in  the 
same  state, ^  &c. 

"Celestius  said,  'Let  him  explain  how  he  means; 
Before  his  transgression,''  &c. 

"AuRELius,  the  bishop,  said,  ^JFhether  the  state  of 
infants  noxv  to  be  baptized  be  such  as  Adam''s  was  be- 
fore his  transgression;  or  whether  they  do  derive  the 
guilt  of  transgression  from  the  same  sinful  origin  from 
whence  they  are  born?  This  is  what  the  Deacon  Pauli- 
nus  would  hear  from  you.'' 

"  Paulinus,  the  deacon,  said, '  Whether  he  has  taught 
that  or  not,  let  him  deny.'' 

'' Celest.ics  said,  '  J  told  you  before  concerning 


110 

the  derivation  of  sin,  that  I  have  heard  several  in  the 
Catholic  church  deny  it;  (he  had  just  before  named 
Ruitinus  as  one  who  denied  it)  aiid  some  I  have  heard 
affirm  it.  It  is  a  matter  of  question  [or  contro^Trsy] 
not  of  heresy.   As  for    infants,  i  always   said, 

THAT  THEY  STAND  IN  NEED  OF  BAPTISM,  AND 
THAT  THEY  OUGHT  TO  BE  BAPTIZED." 

Pelagius,  in  his  creed,  which  he  addressed  with  a 
letter  to  Innocent,  has  this  article: 

Baptismum  unum  tenemus,  quod  iisdem  sacramen- 
ti  verbis  in  infantibcs  quibus  etiam  in  majoribus 
asserimus  esse  celebrandum.  "  We  hold  one  baptism, 
Mdiich  we  say  ought  to  be  administered  with  the  same 
sacramental  words  to  infants  as  it  is  to  elder  persons." 
Apud  Angustin.  Operis  imperfecti.  lib.  4.  c.  8'. 

In  the  letter  referred  to  above  as  cited  by  Augustin 
De peccato  originali,  c,  17,  18.  and  reported  by  Mr. 
Wall  in  connection,  Pelagius  thus  expresses  himself: 
"  Men  slander  me  as  if  /  denied  the  sacramejit  of 
baptism  to  infants,  or  did  promise  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  some  persons  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ,  which  is  a  thing  that  I  never  heard,  no  not 
eve?i  any  xvicked  heretic  say.  For  who  is  there  so  ig- 
norant of  that  which  is  read  m  the  gospel,  as  (I  need  not 
say  to  affirm  this,  but)  in  any  heedless  way,  to  say  such 
a  thing,  or  even  have  such  a  thought?  In  a  word,  who 
can  be  so  impious  as  to  hinder  infants  from  being  baptiz- 
ed, and  born  again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them  miss 
of  the  king-dom  of  heaven?  since  our  Saviour  has  said 
that  none  ca?i  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven  that  is 
not  born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Spi?'it.  Who  is 
then  so  inipious  as  to  refuse  to  an  infant  of -whatsoever 
age  the  common  redemption  of  mankinds  and  to  hin- 
der him  that  is  born  to  an  uncertain  life  from  being 
born  again  to  an  everlasting  and  certain  one?" 

Ceiestius,  also,  in  the  libellus  FiDEior  draught 
of  faith,  which  he  presented  to  Zozimus,  strongly 
avows  infant  baptisin  in  these  worcj's: 


Ill 

Infantes  autem  debere  baptizari  in  remissioncni 
peccatorum  secundum  regulum  universalis  ecclesias,  et 
secundum  Evangelii  sententiam  confitemur;  quiaDomi  - 
nus  statuit  regnum  caelorum  non  nisi  baptizatis  posse 
conferri;  quod  quia  vires  naturae  non  habent,  conferre 
necesse  est  per  gratiae  libertatem.  In  remissionem 
autem  'peccatorum  baptizandos  infantes  non  idcirco 
diximus  ut  peccatum  ex  traduce  firmare  videamur, 
quod  longe  catholico  sensu  alienum  est. 

"  We  own  that  infants  ought,  according  to  the 
RULE  OF  THE  UNIVERSAL  CHURC H,  and  according  to 
the  sentence  of  the  gospel,  to  be  baptized  for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  because  our  I^ord  has  determined  that 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  cannot  be  conferred  upon  any 
but  baptiezd  persons;  which,  because  it  is  a  thing  that 
nature  cannot  give,  it  is  needful  to  give  it  by  the  liber- 
ty of  grace.  But  when  we  say  that  infants  are  to  be  bap- 
tized for  forgiveness  of  sins,  we  do  not  say  it  with  such 
intent  as  that  we  would  seem  to  confirm  the  opinion 
of  sin  being  by  derivation,  which  is  a  thing  far  from  the 
Cathohc  sense."  Aug.  De  peccato  original!,  c.  5. 

Mr.  Robinson  ventures  to  say,  p.  208.  "  The  most 
probable  opinion  is,  that  Pelagians  did  deny  the  bap- 
tism, but  not  the  salvation  of  infants;"  and  elsewhere 
he  affects  to  consider  them  as  anabaptists  and  oppo- 
sers  of  infant  baptism.  The  evidence  already  introduced 
shows  sufficiently  indeed,  the  falsehood  of  such  asser- 
tions; yet  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  something  more. 
Augustininhis  treatise  on  the  guilt  and  remission  of  sins 
and  the  baptism  of  infants,  book  6.  says,  "  I  do  not 
remember  that  I  ever  heard  any  other  thing  from  any 
christians  that  received  the  Old  or  New  Testament,  non 
solum  in  catholica  ecclesia,  veriim  etiam  in  qualibet 
haeresi  vel  schismate  constitutis,  neither  from  such  as 
were  of  the  Cadiolic  church,  nor  from  such  as  belonged 
to  any  sect  or  schism — I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever 
read  otherwise  in  any  writer  that  I  could  ever  find,  treat- 
ingof  these  matters,  that  followed  the  canonical  scripture 


112 

or  did  mean,  or  did  pretend  to  do  so.  Frofii  whence  it  is 
that  this  trouble  is  started  up  upon  us  I  know  not;  but  a 
little  while  ago,  when  I  was  there  at  Carthage,  I  just  curso- 
rily heard  some  transient  discourse  of  some  people  that 
were  talking,  that  infants  are  not  baptized  for  that  rea- 
son that  they  may  receive  remission  of  sins,  but  that  they 
may  be  sanctified  in  Christ.^''  This  citation,  as  well  as 
others  which  precede  it,  shows  very  clearly  that  even 
to  deny  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins  to  infants  was 
a  new  doctrine  every  where  among  Christians  who  re- 
ceived the  scriptures,  both  within  and  without  the  Ca- 
tholic church;  and  that  even  when  this  novel  doctrine 
was  started  by  the  Pelagians,  they  still  believed  that  in- 
fants should  be  baptized  in  order  to  sanctification  in 
Cbxist. 

Augustin,  in  the  same  work,  lib.  1.  de  pec.  merit,  ef 
remis.  c.  26.  says,  Parvulos  baptizandos  esse  Pelagiani 
concedunt,  qui  contra  authoritatem  universae  ecclesi<e 
proculdubio  per  Dominum  et  Apostolostraditam  veni- 
re non  possunt.  *'  That  infants  should  be  baptized  the 
Pelagians  readily  concede  to  us,  because  they  are  un- 
able  to  contravene  the  authority  of  the  church  universal, 
derived  beyond  doubt  through  our  Lord  and  tlie 
apostles.''^ 

It  is  equally  certain,  also,  that  the  Donatists,  whom 
Mr.  Robinson  pronounces  "  Trinitarian  Baptists,"  p. 
216.  did  baptize  infants.  Beside  the  evidence  already 
presented  to  the  reader,  I  will  add  a  canon  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Carthage,  which  is  directly  in  point. 
Concilii  Carthag.  tertii  Can.  48. 

De  Donatistis,  placuitutconsulamus  fratres  et  consa- 
cerdotes  nostros  Siricium  et  Simplicianum  de  solis  in- 
fantibus  qui  baptizantur  penes  eosdem,  ne  [leg.  an] 
quod  suo  non  fecerunt  judicio,  cum  ad  Ecclesiam  Dei 
salubri  proposito  fuerint  conversi,  parcntum  illos  error 
impcdiat,  ne  provehantur  sacri  aitaris  ministri. 

"  In  reference  to  the  Donatists,  it  is  resolved,  that 
we  do  ask  the  advice  of  our  brethren  and  fellow  bi- 


113 

shops  Siricius  and  Simplicianus,  concerning  those 
only  -who  are  in  infancy  baptized  among  them;  whether 
in  that  which  they  have  not  done  by  their  own  judg- 
ment, the  error  of  their  parents  shall  hinder  them,  that 
when  they  by  a  wholesome  purpose  shall  be  converted 
to  the  church  of  God,  they  may  not  be  promoted  to  be 
ministers  of  the  holy  altar." 

Neither  is  it  true  that  the  Novatians  were  Antipedo- 
baptists,  but  the  contrary,  as  is  clearly  mferrible  from 
the  evidence  already  adduced.  These  sects  and  some 
others  rebaptized  those  who  went  over  to  their  com- 
munion; yet  it  was  not  because  they  had  been  baptized 
in  infancy,  but  because  they  had  been  baptized  by  un= 
authorized  persons. 

A  short  abstract  of  the  evidence  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism  which  is  accessible  at  this  period  is  all  the 
limits  assigned  this  work  allows  me  to  introduce.  Yet 
what  can  be  more  interesting  than  the  testimony  of 
five  of  the  greatest  men  of  that  age,  Chrysostom,  Au- 
gustin  and  Jerome  on  one  side  of  a  great  contro- 
versy, Pelagius  and  Celestius  on  the  other;  the  former 
sserting  it  to  be  the  general  usage  of  the  church 
criginally  delivered  to  it  and  ever  since  practised;  the 
latter  promptly  and  cordially  confessing  the  fact:  one  of 
them  (and  he  a  heretic)  saying  Nunquam  se  vel  impium 
aliquem  hcereticum  audisse — "That  he  had  never  heard 
of  any,  not  even  the  most  impious  sectary,"  who  ven- 
tured to  deny  it;  the  other,  that  it  was  performed  ac- 
cordingto  the  RULE  of  the  chujlch  universal, and 
the  decisive  law  of  the  gospel.  At  any  rate,  the  evi- 
dence is  quite  sufficient  to  enable  the  candid  inquirer 
to  appreciate  the  historical  accuracy  of  Mr.  Robinson, 
when  he  asserts  that  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  infant 
baptism  found  its  way  into  the  Catholic  church,  and 
that  there  can  be  no  hazard  in  affirming  it  was  near  the 
close  of  the  fourth  century  that  it  was  first  brought  into 
public  by  Gregory  Nazianzen!  From  the  testimonies  ju§t 
ripviewed,  as  well  as  from  that  which  has  been  pre^ioij^- 

P 


lU 

ly  recited,  it  is  as  satisfactorily  proved  as  any  ancient 
fact  need  be,  that  infant  baptism  was  publicly  known 
and  commonly  practised  from  the  very  times  of  the 
apostles  to  those  of  Augustin  and  Jerome.  What  fact  of 
Christian  antiquity,  I  ask,  reaches  us  recommended 
with  stronger  or  with  more  variegatedevidence  than  this 
very  one?  The  concessions  of  CelestiUs  and  Pelagius 
are  immensely  weighty,  not  only  from  the  circumstance 
of  their  being  heresiarchs,  but  from  their  being  men  of 
talents,  learning  and  large  acquaintance  with  almost 
the  whole  religious  world.  Celestius  was  an  Irishman, 
and  Pelagius  a  South  Briton;  and  besides  possessing 
ample  genius  and  splendid  acquirements,  they  both 
had  been  diligent  and  extensive  travellers,  having  tra- 
versed Europe,  Asia  and  Africa,  and  having  made  long 
and  improving  visits  to  most  of  the  principal  cities  of  the 
three  continents.  Yet  these  men,  thus  accomplished, 
thus  travelled,  thus  extensively  conversant  with  the 
far  greater  part  of  the  Christian  church,  whether  ortho. 
dox  or  the  reverse,  and  having  access  to  all  the  various 
sources  of  information  open  to  inquiry  in  those  times, 
declare,  without  hesitation,  that  the  baptism  of  infants 
was  the  imiversal  usage  of  the  church  and  the  law  of 
Christ,  and  that  scarce  a  heretic  could  be  found  wicked 
enough  to  deny  baptism  to  infants.  Who,  then,  can  hesi- 
tate a  moment  to  give  entire  credit  to  testimony  which, 
while  it  reaches  us  in  a  form  so  well  authenticated,  states 
that  the  most  grossly  heretical  of  such  as  received  the 
scriptures  at  all,  or  could  in  any  sense  be  deemed 
Christians,  did  all  of  them  admit  the  propriety  ofbapr 
tizing  infants.  From  these  facts,  however,  we  are  not  to 
infer  that  there  were  no  sects  in  those  times  who  oppos- 
ed the  baptizing  of  infants.  The  Valentinians,  Quintil- 
lianists,  and  Messalians  did  so.  Such,  too,  were  the 
followers  of  Manes,  with  whom  Mr.  Robinson  seems 
disposed  to  fraternize  with  so  much  cordiality. 
**  Thje  Manicheans  in  England,"  says  he,  p.  211,  212, 
'*  would  be  called  Unitarian  Baptists;  for  Dr.  Mo- 
sheim  hath  proved  that  they  baptize  adults,  and  that 


115 

they  did  not  baptize  any  but  such  as  requested  it»" 
To  say  that  the  Manicheans  of  antiquity  resembled  the 
Unitarian  Baptists  of  England,  is  saying  very  httle  in 
favour  of  the  latter;  since  it  is  certain,  from  the  highest 
historical  authority,  that  there  scarcely  ever  existed  a 
more  widely  erratic,  or  a  more  detestable  sect  than  the 
disciples  of  Manes.  Besides  receiving  with  abject 
submission,  at  the  hand  of  their  founder,  an  abomin- 
able system,  which  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  a 
motley  combination  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Magi  and 
those  of  the  Jews,  they  denied  the  incai'nation  and  suffer- 
ings of  the  Redeemer;  affirmed  that  the  Old  Testament, 
instead  of  being  the  word  of  God,  was  in  reality  the  work 
of  the  devil;  and  rejected  also  the  four  gospels,  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  and,  in  a  word,  the  greater  part  of  the 
New  Testament.*  There  were  enough  of  this  descrip. 
tion  to  reject  infant  baptism  in  those  times,  but  they 
were  not  considered  Christians  at  all,  not  even  heretical 
o«<?^,  either  by  the  Pelagians  or  the  Orthodox,  but  as  infi- 
dels and  atheists;  yet  our  very  liberal  historian  and  his 
passionate  admirers,  the  Shakers,  give  them  the  fra- 
ternal embrace  with  great  interest  and  affection.  But 
these  things  en  passant — I  again  proceed  to  observe 
that  it  ought  to  be  noticed  also  respecting  this  display 
of  evidence  (which,  though  luminous  and  convincing  in 
a  high  degree,  is  but  a  small  part  of  what  can  be  exhibit- 
ed at  the  same  period)  that  it  becomes  the  more  enlight- 
ened and  impressive  from  the  circumstances  in  which 
the  facts  took  place  and  in  which  the  statements  were 
made.  These  historical  documents,  to  which  we  re- 
sort for  testimony,  are  the  representations,  the  appeals, 
the  concessions  of  persons  who  took  opposite  sides  in 
one  of  the  hottest  and  most  remarkable  controversies 
of  the  age;  and  yet  all  agree  in  declaring  to  the  fact  of 
infant  baptism's  being  the  universal  and  long  establish- 
ed custom  of  the  Catholic  church.  These  documents 
come  from  five  of  the  greatest  men  of  that  age;  men  of 

*  M^sheim's  Eccles.  Hist.  vol.  I.  p.  287 — 294, 


116 

genius,  learning,  research,  and  eloquence;  and  conse- 
quently derive  all  that  respectability  and  weight  which 
splendour  of  talents,  unquestionable  veracity,  enlight- 
ened judgment,  and  acquaintance  with  the  whole  reli- 
gious world  can  confer  upon  them.  In  particular  allow 
me  to  remark,  in  reference  to  Augustin  and  Jerome, 
who  cite  Cyprian's  letter,  the  former  was  born  four 
years,  and  the  latter  sixteen  years  before  the  death  of 
Cyprian;  both  were  born  and  lived  within  the  limits  of 
the  Catholic  church,  both  had  the  advantage  of  an  ex- 
tensive acquaintance,  and  they  occupied,  as  public 
teachers,  stations  in  the  church  remotely  distant  from 
each  other,  the  one  a  bishop  of  Hippo  in  Africa,  the 
other  a  resident  bishop  of  Judea  in  Asia.  These  cir- 
cumstances show  that  both  Augustin  and  Jerome  had 
every  opportunity  for  knowing  the  incorruptness  of 
Cyprian's  letter  and  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Car- 
thage; that  the  works  of  Cyprian  must  have  been  read 
and  received  as  authority  very  extensively  through  the 
churches  at  that  period,  and  that  the  same  ideas  and 
practice  respecting  the  baptism  of  infants  which  are 
stated  in  the  forementioned  decree,  must  have  been 
the  prevailing  idea  at  that  time  in  Asia,  Europe  and 
Africa.  I  will  add  only  that  as  this  decree  was  intro- 
duced as  important  authority  in  the  controversy  with 
the  Pelagians;  and  as  the  learned  and  ingenious 
Pelagius  and  Celestius,  who  had  travelled  through 
the  churches  of  Europe,  Africa  and  Asia,  do  not  ob- 
ject either  to  its  genuineness  or  contents,  so  far  as  the 
fact  of  baptizing  infants  is  concerned,  there  is  the 
highest  possible  reason  for  reposing  both  on  the  cre- 
dibility of  the  witnesses  introduced  and  on  the  absolute 
certainty  of  the  matters  of  fact  to  which  they  have 
given  attestation.  When  such  a  stream  of  pure  unsus- 
pected light  is  shed  round  the  steps  of  the  historical 
traveller  while  exploring  Christian  antiquity,  I  ask 
again  was  there  "  no  hazard  in  affirming  that  towards 
the  close  of  the  fourth  century  the  baptism  of  children 


117 

•wasjirst  brought  into  public  by  Gregory  JS'azianzenP'' 
Or  that  "  it  became  agreeable  to  the  clergy  as  a  relief 
from  the  inconveniences  of  the  catechumen  state?'''' — Or 
that  "  it  became  popular  only  in  proportion  as  fraud  be- 
guiled, or  as  civil  poxver  forced  the  reluctant  laity  to 
yield  to  it?''"' — Yes,  hazard  enough,  Heaven  knows;  and 
strange  it  was  that  such  a  candidate  for  fame  as  Mr. 
Robinson  appears  to  have  been,  should  have  jeopar- 
dized every  sacred  attribute  of  historical  character  in 
affirming  for  facts  things  which  the  whole  light  of  an- 
tiquity shows  to  be  "the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision!* 

But,  alas!  this  is  not  all  that  is  put  to  hazard.  If 
Augustin,  Jerome,  Chrysostom,  Optatus,  Paulinus, 
Ruffinus  and  Origen  are  not  to  be  believed  in  the  af- 
fair of  baptizing  infants;  if  the  same  spirit  of  carping 
incredulity  and  crimination  is  to  govern  (and  it  may 
do  this  with  equal  justice)  our  conclusions  with  re- 
gard to  the  rest  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Fathers,  if  Mr. 
Robinson's  principles  of  acting  are  pursued,  the  doc- 
trine of  testimon)^  will  be  cut  up  by  the  roots,  the 
character  and  ecclesiastical  details  of  the  Fathers  and 
historians  of  Christianity  will  be  consigned  to  oblivion, 
and  we  shall  look  around  in  vain  for  a  bible;  for  it 
is  by  such  testimony  alone  that  we  are  able  to  prove 
that  we  have  now  the  very  same  scriptures  which  the 
primitive  Christians  deemed  canonical.  Indeed  Mr. 
Robinson  pronounces  a  sweeping  sentence  of  con- 
demnation upon  the  whole  of  them,  p.  223.  "  It  must 
be  granted  that  the  Fathers  are  miserable  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  facts,  2iS\\t\\.?isinco7npetent  judges  of  rights 
Admit  this  judgment  to  be  correct,  and  the  question  is 
settled  as  to  the  volume  of  inspiration  so  called,  being 
the  identical  book  delivered  by  the  apostles,  and  suc- 
cessively transmitted  from  one  age  to  another  till  it 
reaches  our  own  times. 

Such  revilers  of  the  Fathers  are  doing  the  work  of 
infidelity  quite  as  effectually  as  infidelity  itself  could 
wish. 


iia 


CHAPTER  II. 


Sect.  1. 1  come  now  to  review  those  facts  and  specula- 
tions by  which  Mr.  Robinson  endeavours  to  overthrow 
baptism  in  the  mode  of  sprinkHng  and  affusion.  The 
point  to  which  he  drives  his  inquiries  and  representa- 
tions, is  showing  that  sprinkhng  is  of  Pagan  origin. 
To  this  purpose  he  would  introduce  Tertullian  as  de- 
livering his  testimony.  "  Tertullian,"  says  he,  "  in  the 
second  or  third  century  affirmed  that  the  ancient  Pagans 
initiated  persons  into  the  mysteries  of  Isis  and  Mithra 
by  a  mock  baptism,  which  satan  inspired  them  to  ad- 
minister, in  order  to  render  ineffectual  that  baptism 
which  he  foresaw  Jesus  would  institute."  p.  416.  The 
sense  of  the  passages  in  Tertullian,  to  which  the  learn- 
ed historian  refers,  namely,  De  baptismo^  c.  5.  and  t>e 
prescripti  nibus  adversus  Hereticos^  lib.  cap,  40,  are 
not  precisely,  nor  even  justly  stated.  The  first  is  as 
follows:  "But,  truly,  nations  utterly  destitute  of  the 
knowledge  of  spiritual  things,  confer  authority  upon 
their  idols  by  a  similar  agency,  but  deceive  themselves 
by  inefficient  waters.  For,  indeed,  the  candidates  are 
initiated  into  the  mysteries  of  a  certain  Isis  and  Mithras 
by  baptism;  and  farther,  they  put  honour  upon  their 
deities  themselves  by  washings  done  also  on  them.* 
Besides,  while  they  every  where  expiate  the  villas, 
houses,  temples,  and  whole  cities  by  the  sprinkling  of 
water  carried  round  about  them,  they  never  fail  being 
baptized  for  the  Appollonarian  and  Pelusian  games. 
And  this  they  presume  is  to  effect  their  personal  rege- 
neration and  the  remission  of  their  perjuries.  Also 
among  the  ancients  every  one  who  had  stained  himself 

*  That  is,  they  lustrate  or  baptize  the  images  of  their  gods;  thus, 
as  Ovid,  Fast.  4,  and  Lucan.  Pharsai.  1.  declare,  the  lavation  or 
baptism  of  Cybele,  mother  of  gods,  was  celebrated  in  the  river 
Almo,  vi  Kal.  April.  Vide  Ix)mieri  De  lust.  Vet.  Gent.  Syntag. 

0.26. 


119 

with  murder  expiated  himself  with  purifying  water.  If 
therefore  they  flatter  themselves  with  mere  natural 
water,  as  presenting  a  fit  material  for  the  desired  fact  of 
moral  cleansing;  how  much  more  truly  do  waters  pro- 
duce that  effect  by  the  authority  of  God,  from  whom 
the  entire  nature  of  these  waters  has  been  derived?  If 
by  religion  they  apprehend  virtue  to  be  infused  into 
water,  what  religion  can  be  more  powerful  in  effecting 
this  than  that  of  the  living  God? — which  fact,  being 
acknowledged,  we  here  recognize  the  care  of  the  devil 
xo  imitate  the  things  of  God,  when  he  also  institutes 
a  baptism  for  his  followers."*  In  the  other  passage, 
Tertullian  speaks  very  much  after  tlie  same  manner; 
observing  that,  with  a  view  to  subvert  truth,  the  devil, 
in  the  mysteries  of  idols,  apes  the  things  done  in  the 
celebration  of  the  divine  sacraments.  "  He  also,"  says 
this  Father,  "  baptizes  certain  persons  as  being  his  be- 
lieving faithful  ones;  engages  to  them  in  baptism  the 
remission  of  their  sins;  and  after  this  manner  he  does 
to  this  very  time  initiate  candidates  into  the  mysteries  of 
Mithras,"  &c.  After  proceeding  in  the  detail  of  other 
particulars  of  resemblance  between  the  idolatrous  rites 
and  those  deemed  by  him  divinely  instituted,  he  sket- 
ches rapidly  and  elegantly  the  institutions  of  Numa, 
and  then  asks  "  whether  the  devil  has  not  obviously 

*  Sed  enim  nationes  extranet  ab  omni  intellectu  spiritalium  po-- 
testatem  eadem  efficacia  idolis  suis  subministrant,  sed  viduis  aquis 
sibi  mentiuntur.  Nam  et  sacris  quibusdam  per  lavacrum  initiantur, 
Isidis  alicujus,  aut  Mithrje,  ipsos  etiam  Deos  suos  lavationibus 
efterrunt.  Ceterum  villas,  domos,  templa,  totasque  urbes  asper- 
gine  circutnlats  aquae  expiant  passim,  certe  ludis  Apollinaribus  et 
Pelusiis  tinguuntur.  Idque  se  in  regenerationem  et  impunitatem 
perjuriorum  suorum  agere  prxsumunt.  Item  penes  veteres  quis- 
quis  se  homocidio  infecerat,  purgatrice  aqua  se  expiabat.  Igitur 
si  de  sola  naturae  aqua,  quod  propria  materia  sit  adlegendi  auspicii 
emundationis,  blandiuntur,  quanto  id  verius  aquae  praestabunt  per 
Dei  auctoritatem,  a  quo  oranis  natura  earum  constituta  est?  Si 
religione  aquam  medicari  putant,  quae  potior  religio  quam  Dei 
vivi?  quo  agnito  hie  quoque  studium  diaboli  recognoscimus  res 
Dei  emulantis,  cum  et  ipeo.  baptismum  in  suis  cxcrcet.  Tertull. 
de  Baptismo  liber  cap.  5. 


1^0 

imitated  tlie  austerity  of  the  Jewish  law?"  And  this 
done,  conckides  that  it  is  probable  in  the  whole  dispo- 
sition of  the  idolatrous  worship,  the  devil  designed  to 
imitate  the  things  observed  in  the  administration  of  the 
divine  sacraments.* 

Thus  Tertullian — and  really,  after  examining  him 
with  some  care,  I  am  unable  to  see  in  him  any  thing 
like  teaching  that  satan  inspired  the  ancient  Pagans  to 
administer  a  mock  baptism  in  order  to  render  inef- 
fectual that  baptism  -which  he  foresaw  Jesus  would 
institute!  Indeed  the  historian  shocks  me!  Be- 
hold this  son  of  Socinus,  whose  theory  degrades  the 
Blessed  Jesus  to  a  mere  man,  confer  upon  satan  the  di- 
vine atiribute  of  prescience!  For  when  his  infernal  ma- 
jesty instituted  the  initiatory  and  expiatory  baptisms  of 
the  Egyptian  Isis  and  the  Persian  Mithras,  of  Apollo 
at  Butum,  andof  Bubastis  at  Pelusium  (which  fact  took 
place  some  centuries  before  Christ)  he  foresaw,  it 
seems,  what  that  baptism  would  be  which  Jesus  would 
institute.  And  then  the  invention  of  this  mock  bap- 
tism among  Pagans  was,  our  author  informs  us,  at  the 
inspiration  of  the  devil;  which  is  an  additional  homage 
to  the  divine  powers  of  the  prince  of  Erebus!  Yet 
how  was  it  a  mock  baptism,  if  its  prototype  was  given 
by  the  inspiration  of  his  satanic  majesty? — The  devil's 
baptism,  according  to  the  implication  here,  was  the 
original,  and  Chrisfs — I  tremble  to  proceed — was  the 
mock  baptism! 

Tell  me,  reader,  was  it  strange  this  man  loved  the 

*  Sed  quxrilur  a  quo  intellectus  interpretetur,  eorum  quas  ad 
hsereses  faciant?  a  diabolo,  scilicet,  cujus  sunt  partes  interveriendi 
veritalem  qui  ipsas  quoque  res  sacramentorum  divinorum,  in  ido- 
lorum  mysteriis  emulatur.  Tinguit  et  ipse  quosdam  utique  creden- 
tes  et  fideles  suos:  expiationem  delictorum  de  lavacro  repromittit, 
et  sic  adhuc  iniiiat  Mithi-x,  Sec.  nonne  manifeste  diabolus  morosita- 
tem  illam  Judaicx  le|:^is  imitatus  est?  Qui  ergo  ipsas  res  de  quibus 
sacramenta  Christi  administrantur,  tarn  emulanter  affectavit  expri- 
tnere  in  negotiis  idolatiiae,  &:c,  Tertul.  De  prxscvipt.  adv.  Heret 
Lib.  c.  40,'' 


121 

Manicheans?  But  no;  it  is  shocking  as  it  is  false, 
though  Mr.  Robinson  or  an  Apion,  or  an  infidel  Paine, 
preach  it,  that  Christ  and  his  apostles,  or  even  the 
Jews,  were  the  miserable  copyists  of  the  order  and  con- 
stitution of  Gentile  worship.  This  detestible  hypo- 
thesis has  received  an  everlasting  check  from  the 
learned  and  eloquent  pens  of  Josephus,  Spencer,  Wit- 
sius,  Basnage,  Lomeier,  Bryant,  and  Maurice,  who 
have  put  it  b-^yond  all  reasonable  doubt  that  the  whole 
heathen  world,  the  Egyptians,  Greeks,  Romans,  and 
Bramins,  derived  originally  their  sacred  usages,  and 
baptism  as  well  as  others,  from  the  same  source  with 
the  Hebrews.  This  is  the  very  doctrine  expressed  by 
TertuUian  in  the  forecited  passages,  where  he  alleges 
that  the  rehgious  customs,  and  particularly  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Gentiles,  were  imitations  of  those  they  saw 
practised  among  Jcavs  and  Christians.  Justin  Martyr 
delivers  the  same  opinion  in  his  first  apology  for 
Christians,  where  he  says,  "  The  daemons  had  learned 
that  very  baptism  from  the  prophets;  in  as  much  as 
they  have  it  so  arranged  that  they  who  go  to  the  tem- 
ples should  sprinkle  themselves  before  they  can  offer 
them  sweet  odours  and  libations,  or  also  that  they 
wash  themselves  all  over  in  water  ere  they  approach 
the  shrines.  And  since  the  priests  command  the  vota- 
ries to  enter  stripped  of  their  sandals  on  account  of 
the  sacredness  of  the  place,  these  Genii  do  in  fact  imitate 
that  which  they  know  to  have  happened  to  Moses."* 
And  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  in  a  passage  which  I  will 
quote  presently  for  another  purpose,  speaking  of  the 
Gentile  washings  before  praying  and  sacrificing,  says, 
"  And  truly  this  may  be  the  very  image  of  the  bap- 

*  K«<  TO  Xovrpov  d»  tSts  UKtv<fctv!»t  oi  ^eti^ovcs  3<«  tS  tt^ e^ijTaa  Ktxi}- 
fv/fciiov.)  tvn'pyyjC-a*  nxj  pavriL^eiV  ixvrisg  t»5  «5  rx  iepcc  uCtZv  i-7rt/2xi- 
iiovrcti,  x.xt  TTpoTiivxi  uvTo7<;  ^iXXovlxi,  >i9</3«5  »"«*  xv/o-aj  uTronxirrxi. 
Tixiov  oi  xxi  Xoveo-^xt  XTCiivlxi^  vfiv  i>.^Hv  itti  rx  npx  iv^x  t^pvylxty 
UzpyiTi.  At  yxp  to  VTroXveo-^xi  mijSxtvevrxi  toT?  iipoTi,  xut  nroli  avToTf 
rSi  B-pri<rK;vovTXii  KiXivi<r9-xt  vvl  tuv  UpxTSvoiTuv^  Ix  rati  cru/a/ixvlut  M^- 
fl^M  T(t   Hpn/xivy  -zpa^nTo  ftxB-otTti  oi  ^xlf^avti  ifAifAyia-xvio. 

Justin.  Maitvr.  Apol.  1.  pix)  ChrisUanis,  §81. 

Q 


122 

tis:m  which  has  been  deUvered  from   Moses  to   the 
poets." 

But  what,  I  ask,  was  the  mock  baptism  practised  by 
the  ancient  Pagans?  The  learned  historian  would  have 
us  believe  it  was  sprinkling  only:  but,  unhappily  for  his 
statement,  Tertullian  says  no  such  thing.  That  Father, 
indeed,  speaks  of  the  lustration  of  villas,  houses,  tem- 
ples and  cities  by  the  sprinkling  of  water,  as  one  sort 
of  Gentile  baptism,  but  he  mentions  other  baptisms  in 
the  very  terms  ("  tinguo,  lavatio  and  lavacrum^'')  which 
he  employs  to  set  forth  the  Christian  baptism  as  com- 
monly practised;  which  Mr.  Robinson,  with  modern 
Baptists,  would  have  us  believe  mean  immersion  only, 
but  which  in  the  language  of  Tertullian  were  designed 
to  describe  the  whole  circle  of  Heathenish  washings* 
Justin  Martyr,  in  the  passage  cited  above,  says  the 
baptism  there  described  as  having  been  derived  from 
the  Jewish  prophets,  consisted  in  sprinkling  and  im- 
mersions. The  baptism  by  which  persons  were  intro- 
duced to  the  mysteries  of  Mithras  was  in  the  mode  of 
immersions  repeated  for  many  days,  or,  as  Gregory 
Nazianzen  says  respecting  persons  suing  for  this  ho- 
nour, that  they  were  made  SixynlAtr^Ai  i-m  TtoKXoiig  tjfxi- 
^oug  vSo)^  TToAu,  "  to  swim  in  much  water  for  many 
days.'''* 

Beside  the  washings  above  described,  there  were  the 
baptisms  or  washings  of  the  hands  and  the  feet,  which 
were  very  frequently  and  scrupulously  observed  for 
the  expiation  of  crimes,  or  in  approaching  the  gods  in 
prayer  or  sacrifice.  Of  this  sort,  indeed,  numerous  in- 
stances occur  in  ancient  authors;  but,  if  I  mistake  notj 
their  immersions  were  still  more  common. 

Such  were  the  Pseudobaptisms  of  the  ancient  Pa- 
gans! Yet  how  this  is  to  help  the  author's  assertion, 
that  the  primitive  Christians  took  the  hint  of  sprink- 
ling from  the  Pagans  and  the  devil,  I  have  yet  to  learn. 
But  after  brhiging  into  view  the  numerous  immersions 

*  Lomeier.  De  Lust.  Vet.  Gent.  c.  I  a, 


123 

which  the  learned  historian  chose  to  conceal  from  his 
readers,  I  might  say  to  his  admirer,  **- physician,  heal 
thy  self  ^^ — show  me  that  Christians  did  not  get  their  dip- 
pings from  the  Pagans  and  the  devil!  When  that  is 
done  1  shall  see  a  fair  dereliction  of  Mr.  Robinson's 
partial  and  criminating  induction,  and  will  not  find  it 
a  hard  task  to  free  sprinkling  from  the  same  ungra- 
cious imputation. 

The  quotations  from  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  the  facts  which  they 
detail,  make  another  point  very  plain,  nay  positively 
certain,  namely,  that  there  must  have  been  such  a  thing 
as  initiatory  baptism  among  the  Jews  long  before  the 
time  of  Christ,  in  as  much  as  it  existed  among  the 
Gentiles,  in  the  religious  rites  of  Isis,  Apollo  and 
Bubastis. 

These  Fathers  deliver  this  as  their  deliberate  opi- 
nion,  and  the  whole  current  of  ancient  history  justi- 
fies it. 

But  it  seems,  and  Mr.  Robinson  makes  a  great  thing 
of  it,  that  the  Greeks  lustrated  their  infants  on  the  fifth 
day  after  their  nativity,  giving  them  their  names  on 
the  seventh,  and  that  the  Romans  lustrated  their  in- 
fant females  on  the  eighth  day  and  the  males  on  the 
ninth  after  the  birth.  In  proof  of  these  facts  he  refers 
to  Lomeier's  Epimenides,  cap.  27. 

I  respect,  nay  venerate  Lomeier  as  authority,  but 
then,  I  ask,  why  did  not  our  historian  tell  us  also  from 
that  very  learned  work  what  the  lustration  of  infants 
really  was?  To  have  done  so  would  have  been  fair; 
but  instead  of  this  he  acts  just  as  he  did  when  he  re- 
presented the  lustrations  of  the  Heathens  to  be  sprink- 
lings only,  sedulously  cultivating  the  impression  in 
the  mind  of  the  reader  that  in  lustrating  they  sprinkled 
their  infants,  and  is  happy  enough  to  find  in  Picart's 
Religious  Customs  the  more  recent  existence  of  the 
fact,  where  it  is  said  that  tlie  Mexican  midwives  bap^ 
tized  infants. 


124 

The  artful  and  insidious  representatioft  thus  spread 
out  before  the  reader  may  have  its  use,  no  doubt;  yet 
ii  may  not  be  improper  to  inquire  into  the  nature  of  in- 
fant histration,  and  in  doing  tliis  I  will  go  to  the  his- 
torian's own  autliority,  I  mean  Lomeier  and  Persius, 
sat.  2.  as  quoted  by  that  author  in  the  very  next  page 
after  the  one  referred  to  by  Mr.  Robinson.  An  infant 
was  then  lustrated  by  oflering  a  sacrifice  to  the  gods, 
by  an  aunt's  taking  it  from  tlie  cradle  and  expiating 
its'  lips  and  forehead  with  lustral  saliva,  and  a  few  other 
things  still  less  like  infant  sprinkling  than  these;*  and 
yet  our  author  has  the  effrontery  to  assert  that  the  lines 
of  Persius,  with  a  slight  alteration,  would  be  a  very  good 
description  of  a  modern  christening. 

If  infant  baptism  existed  among  the  Heathens  of 
ancient  times,  it  is  very  surprizing,  and  almost  incre- 
dible, that  Tertuliian  should  not  have  mentioned  it 
when  he  gives  so  minute  an  account  as  he  does  in  his 
book  De  Anima,  c.  39.  of  the  various  rites  practised 
by  Pagans  toward  an  infant  during  the  first  days  after 
nativity  down  to  the  eighth  or  histral  day,  and  when 
he  mentions  one  of  the  lustra!  rites,  namely,  that  of 
fata  scribundo  advocandi;  or  that  he  should  have  failed 
to  mention  it  when  he  speaks  of  the  lustral  solemnity 
in  his  book  De  idolatria,  c.  16.  under  the  title  of  No- 
minalia.  Admit,  however,  that  the  ancient  Heathens 
did  baptize  infants,  it  would  go  to  prove,  as  their  other 
l)aptisms  do,  a  corresponding  baptism  among  the  Jews. 
Ail  these  facts,  when  impartially  considered  and  fully 
stated,  conspire  to  establish  the  baptism  of  initiation 
amongtheJews,  and  also  to  enhance,  in  no  inconsiderable 
degree,  the  evidence  from  history  by  which  we  estab- 
lish the  fact  of  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  among 
the  primitive  Christians. 

The  learned  historian,  after  informing  us  that  "  the 

*  See  Jolmn.  Lomeieri  De  Vet.  Gent.  LusU'as.  Syntag.  cap.  27. 
pi'ope  c'.b  iniuo. 


125 

Christians  introduced  lustration  into  their  ritual,  long 
before  it  was  applied  to  infants,"  goes  on  to  remark, 
"  The  primitive  Christians  considered  lustration  with 
abhorrence,  deemed  it  a  sort  of  magic,  and  preached 
and  wTote  against  it:  but  a  habit  so  ancient  and  in- 
veterate was  not  easily  eradicated.  (2)"  p.  421.  His 
reference  in  proof  of  this  very  extravagant  statement 
is  again  toLomeier'sEpimenides,  which  really  contains 
nothing  like  it. 

Lomeier  indeed  says,  that  to  eradicate  certain  ab- 
horrent rites  which  had  laid  deep  hold  of  men's  minds, 
cost  the  primitive  or  rather  ancient  Christians  immense 
labour,  and  that  to  effect  it  the  doctors  of  the  church 
made  great  efforts  in  their  homilies,  commentaries  and 
canons;  nay,  that  Constantine  and  other  emperors  in- 
terposed their  authority  to  suppress  them.  But  he  tells 
us  also  that  those  abominable  superstitions  were — things 
entirely  different  from  initiatory  sprinkling  or  baptism. 
They  were  the  amulets  with  which  superstitious  per- 
sons fortified  themselves  against  magical  incantations; 
they  were  remedies  against  witchcraft,  such  as  the 
wearing  of  rue  or  clown's  spikenard;  they  were  asper- 
sions to  dissolve  the  incantations  of  wizards  and 
witches,  such  as  sprinkling  the  bewitched  person  with 
fountain  water  in  which  the  root  of  the  wild  asparagus 
had  been  infused;  and  with  certain  other  liquids  which 
I  beg  leave  to  slur  in  terms  borrowed  from  another 
language,  lotio^  lotio  siiisse,  et  equce  urina^  and  in  doing 
this  I  use  the  very  words  of  Lomeier.  Hce  supersti- 
tioniim  vanitates — These  were  the  mummeries  of  a  de- 
testable superstition,  for  the  extirpation  of  which  Lo- 
meier says  the  piety,  eloquence  and  wisdom  of  antiquity 
were  so  perseveringly  and  successfully  exerted:  and 
are  certainly  very  different  matters  from  what  Mr.  Ro- 
feinson  endeavours  to  impose  on  the  unlearned  reader 

(^)Lomeieri  ubi  Supra,  cap.  39. 


126 

under  the  indescriptive  and  general  terms  lustrations 
and  sprinklings.* 

Sect.  2.  But  the  question  of  anxious  investigation  is, 
what  was  the  primitive  mode  of  baptizing?  At  the  near- 
est point  to  which  we  can  recur  in  approaching  the  apos- 
toUc  age,  we  see  no  opposition  made  to  baptism  in  the 
mode  of  sprinkling,  though  the  opposite  one  appears 
also  to  have  been  practised.  The  time  of  Justin  Martyr 
is  the  farthest  back  we  can  go,  which  is  about  forty  or 
fifty  years  later  than  the  age  of  the  apostles. 

In  the  passagd  selected  from  his  second  apology  for 
Christians,  p.  ii7,  he  expressly  calls  the  sprinkling,  as 
well  as  entire  ablutio?is  of  the  Heathens,  a  baptism;  and 
declares  moreover  that  this  veri/  baptism  had  been 
learned  from  the  prophets.  This  document  proves 
incontestibly,  that  in  Justin  Martyr's  time  sprinkling 
with  crater  was  deemed  a  real  baptism;  that  the  bap- 
tisms  of  the  Old  Testament  were  understood  as  Pcedo- 
baptists  generally  now  understand  them;  that  the  word 
^Avri^cd,  to  sprinkle,  signifies  to  baptize,  in  common 
with  Aova,  to  wash;  and  consequently,  that  the  mean- 
ing put  upon  the  words  origmally  used  to  describe  the 
baptism  by  modern  Baptists  is  incorrect. 

Soon  after  the  time  of  Justin  and  about  sixty  years 
after  the  apostolic  age,  a  certain  baptism  is  related 
which  throws  considerable  light  upon  the  question  as 
to  the  mode  of  baptizing  in  the  second  century.  It  is 
thus  introduced  by  the  Magdeburg  historians:  "  Al- 
though it  is  to  be  lamented  that  the  form  of  adminis- 
tering baptism  which  was  in  use  in  this  age  has  not 
been  very  exactly  described;  yet  that  it  continued  to 

*  See  Lotneier's  Epimenides,  ch.  39.  from  which  the  above  ac- 
count is  taken.  Among  other  ancient  authorities  introduced  by  that 
author  is  the  decision  of  the  council  of  Ancyranum,  held  in  A.  C. 
308 — Can.  23.  sic  decretum  est:  Qui  angaria,  vel  aus/iicia,  sivc 
somniaivel  divinationes  quafilibet^  secu7idum  morem  gejit ilium  obnerv- 
ant,  aut  in  domos  suas  hujusmodi  hoinincs  introduczmt  in  excjuirendis 
aliquibus arte  malijica^,aut  ut  domos  suas  lustrtnt,  confessi  quinque- 
nio  fienitentiam  agant,  sccwidum  antiquitus  constitutat  regulas. 


127 

be  simple,  is  evident  from  this,  that  we  do  not  find  any 
mention  made  of  any  remarkable  variation  or  change, 
in  approved  authors.  Indeed  that  no  change  had  taken 
place  in  the  eastern  churches  and  especially  in  that  of 
Alexandria,  the  exti'aordinary  case  of  the  baptized 
Jew,  related  by  Nicephorus,  clearly  shows.  L.  3.  c. 
37.  "  For  at  that  time,  when  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoni- 
nus possessed  the  supreme  power  at  Rome,  it  happen- 
ed that  a  certain  Jew  made  a  journey  through  a  dry 
and  desert  country  in  company  with  some  Christians, 
and  joined  with  them  in  singing  psalms;  but  whilst 
they  were  on  the  way  the  Jew  was  seized  with  a  violent 
disease,  so  that  he  himself,  as  well  as  his  companions, 
despaired  of  his  life.  He  then  solicited  the  Christians 
with  many  prayers  that  they  would  not  leave  him  thus 
circumstanced  in  his  last  moments,  but  would  confer 
upon  him  the  sacred  washing.  But  when  they  denied 
that  it  was  in  their  power  to  do  this  for  him  because 
they  were  destitute  both  of  a  priest  and  water,  without 
which  baptism  could  not  be  administered.  However 
the  Jew  more  earnestly  entreated  and  conjured  them 
that  they  would  not  refuse  to  perform  this  thing  for 
him.  At  length  therefore,  they,  having  stripped  off  his 
clothes,  and  making  use  of  sand  instead  of  water, 
sprinkled  him  three  times,  saying  that  they  baptized 
him  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of 
the  Spirit.  Upon  which  a  miracle  immediately  ensued, 
for  this  person,  who  on  account  of  his  grievous  and 
dangerous  illness  was  unable  to  stand  upon  his  feet  be- 
fore, being  now  restored,  pursued  the  remainder  of  the 
journey  with  them,  firm  and  strong. 

After  they  had  returned  home,  the  bishop  of  Alex- 
andria being  consulted  by  them  concerning  the  opi- 
nion of  the  church,  answered;  that  the  Jew  was  bap- 
tized, provided  only  he  should  be  again  sprinkled  with 
water.''^  He  did  not  enjoin  the  anointing  with  oil,  or 
that  othqr  ceremonies  and  pomps  which  were  after- 


128 
wards  added,   should  be  used  to  this  baptized  per- 


on 


"* 


This  fact  of  the  Jew's  baptism,  no  less  than  the 
judgment  of  the  bishop  and  church  of  Alexandria, 
makes  it  highly  probable  that  the  mode  of  baptizing 
at  that  time  was  simple  sprinkling  without  the  oil,  the 
immersions  and  other  superstitious  ceremonies  which 
afterwards  became  remarkable  in  the  church. 

The  same  result  will  arise  from  observing  in  what 
manner  Tertullian,  the  next  earliest  writer,  treats  of 
baptism  in  his  day.  Mr.  Robinson  thinks  he  has 
given  us  the  practice  of  that  period  by  a  very  formal 
criticism  on  what  is  said  by  Tertullian  in  his  book  De 
baptismo,  c.  2.  which  is  as  follows:  Nih\ladeo  est  quod 

*  Etsi  dolendum  est,  baptizandi  formam,  quae  usitata  huic  seculo 
fult,  non  esse  diligentius  descriptam  tamen  simplicem  fuisse  reten- 
tam,  ex  eo  apparet,  quod  in  probatis  antorihus  nulla  insignis  repe- 
vkur  variatio  aut  mutatio  annotata.  In  orientalibus  quidem  ecclesiis 
maxime  vero  Alexandrina,  nihil  immiitatum  esse,  casus  ille  niii-a- 
biiis  super  baptizatione  Judaei,  quern  Nicephorus  recital  libro  3, 
cap.  37.  ostendit.  Cum  enim  Judaeus  quispiani,  eo  tempore  quo  Ro- 
mae  imperium  Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus  tenuit,  in  arido  forte  et 
deserto  loco  cum  Christianis  iter  faceret,  et  Psalmos  una  cum  lis 
caneret,  evenit  ut  morbo  repentino  et  gravi  Judaeus  eo  in  itinera 
corripiretur,  adeo  ut  de  salute  sua  cum  ipse,  turn  hi  quorum  comes 
erat,  desperarent.  Multis  igitur  precibus  sollicitat  ille  Christianos, 
ne  se  ita  in  extremis  constitutum  relinciuerent,  sed  sacrum  lava- 
crum  sibi  coiiFerrent.  lUi  vero  cum  hoc  ei  se  facere  posse  negarent, 
quia  et  sacerdote  et  aqua  destituentur,  sine  quibus  baptismus  fieri 
non  posset:  magis  Judaeus  et  impensius  obsecrare,  et  adjuratione 
eos  ne  hoc  sibi  negarent  adigere.  Ad  quod  illi,  detractis  homini 
vestibus,  arena  eum  pro  aqua  ter  conspersere,  addentes;  baptizare 
se  eum  in  nomine  Patris  et  filii,  et  spiritus  sancti.  Quam  rem  co;i- 
tinuo  miraculum  consecutum  est,  ut  nimirum  is  qui  propter  afiec- 
tionem  gravem  et  periculosam  pedibus  pridem  insistere  non  pos- 
set, nunc  restitutus,  reliquum  quod  superesset  itineris,  firmus  et 
validuscum  illis  conficeret.  Cum  igitui  ad  locum  suum  rediissent, 
Episcopus  Alexandriae  ab  illis  consultus,  de  senlentia  Ecclesicc  re- 
spondit:  Baptizatum  esse  Judxum,  si  modo  aqua  denuo  pcrfunde- 
retur.  Non  mandavit,  ut  olei  inunctio,  aut  alii  apparatus  et  pomp?? 
qua;  posea  accesserunt,  baptizato  adhibentur. 

Eccles.  Histor,  pei;  aliquot  studiosos  et  pios  viros  in  urbe  Mag;- 
deburgica.  Cent.  II.  cap.  vi.  p.  110. 


129 

Miirat  mentes  hominum  qiiam  simplicitas  dwinorum 
operiun  quce  inactu  videntiir,  et  inag7ujicentia  quce  in 
effectu  repromittitiir:  ut  hic  quoque  quonhim  fanta  sim- 
plicitate,  sinepompa,  sine  apparatu  novo  aliqiio,  dniique 
sine  sumptu  homo  in  aqua  demissus^  inter  pauca  verba 
tinctus,  lion  multo  vel  niJiilo  mimdior  resurgit^  eo  incre 
debilis  existematur  eonseciitio  ceternitatis.  He  is  quite 
sure  the  words  homo  in  aqua  demissus  ^t  inter  pauca 
verba  tinctus  non  multo  vel  nihilo  resurgit  are  exactly 
descriptive  of  the  mode  of  baptizing  observed  by  Eng- 
lish Baptists.  But  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that  the  ex^ 
pression  homo  in  aqua  demissus  will  as  well  describe  the 
placing  a  person  m  the  stream  on  his  knees  and  then 
dipping  his  head  forward  into  the  water,  after  the  man- 
ner of  some  sects  of  modern  Baptists.  I  do  not  believe 
it  possible  to  decide,  from  the  words  of  Tertullian, 
what  was  the  precise  mode  of  immersion  at  Carthage; 
and,  indeed,  when  I  read  that  author  and  others  of  the 
Fathers,  I  am  induced  to  think  that  where  immersion 
in  baptizing  is  expressed  we  are  not  always  to  under- 
stand the  immersion  of  the  whole  body,  but  of  the 
head  only  or  some  part  of  the  body.  Thus,  for  in- 
stance, Jerome,  Epist.  contra  lAiciferianos,  speaking  ot 
immersion,  says,  "  as  in  the  font  of  baptism^  ter  mer- 
gitare  caput,  to  plunge  the  head  thrice  under  water. ^'' 

But  I  will  now  introduce  to  the  reader's  observation 
several  passages  Avhich  \vill  show  very  clearly  what 
Tertullian  and  others  in  his  day  thought  relative  to  the 
ifnode. 

In  his  book  on  baptism,  ch.  12.  he  thus  writes: 
**  And  now  I  come  to  respond  as  I  am  able  to  those 
who  deny  that  the  apostles  were  baptized.  For  if  they 
had  received  the  human  baptism  of  John  and  needed 
the  baptism  of  Christy  with  what  propriety  had  our 
Lord  himself  defined  but  one  baptism  only,  saying  to 
Peter  wishing  to  be  perfused.  He  who  has  once  been 
washed  has  no  need  for  washing  again?  which  remark 
H  is  obvious  he  could  never  have  made  to  one  who 

R 


130 

was  entirely  unbaptized;  and  this  is  a  prominent  proof 
against  those  who  take  away  John's  baptism  from  the 
apostles  with  a  view  to  overthrow  the  sacrament  of  wa- 
ter baptism." — "  Others,  not  without  manifest  reluc- 
tance, resort  to  this  argument,  that  the  apostles  must 
have  accomplished  the  duty  of  baptism  when  enclosed 
in  the  ship  they  -were  sprinkled  with  the  wavesy  and 
likewise  that  Peter,  walking  through  the  sea,  was  am- 
ply dipped.  But,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  one  thing  to  be 
casually  sprinkled  or  surprized  with  the  dashing  of  a 
wave,  and  quite  another  to  be  baptized  by  a  religious 
form."* 

In  his  book  concerning  penitence,  ch.  6.  we  have 
the  following  explicit  observation:  "  Neither  do  I  deny 
the  divine  benefit,  namely,  the  remission  of  sins,  to  be 
secure  to  those  who  shall  receive  baptism  in  any  mode; 
but  that  it  be  thus  happily  attained,  should  be  ardently 
laboured  after:  for  who  will  apply  to  thee,  a  man  whose 
penitence  is  so  entirely  hollow,  a  single  sprinkling  of 
water  F^^-f 

These  passages  give  occasion  for  the  following  re- 
marks. That  TertuUian  admitted  the  aspersion  of  wa- 
ter to  be  baptism,  is  clear  from  this,  that  his  argument 
from  the  fact  of  Peter's  desiring  to  be  sprinkled  turned 

*  Et  nunc  illis  ut  potero  respondebo  qui  negant  apostolos  tinc- 
tos.  Nam  si  humanum  Joannes  baptismum  inierant,  et  Dominicum 
desiderabant,  quatenus  unum  baptismum  definierat  ipse  Dominus, 
dicens  Petroperfundi  nolend  [x'oktitt  ut  legit  Junius]:  Qui  semel 
luvit,  non  habetnecesserursum  \_m'cesse rursum? secunduminnmm]: 
quod  uticjuc  noD  tincto  non  omnino  dixisset:  et  hxc  est  probatio 
ex'eita  adversus  illos,  qui  adimunt  Apostolis  etiani  Joannis  baptis- 
mum, ut  destruunt  aqux  sacramentum.  Alii  plane  satis  coacte  in^ 
jiciunt  tunc  apostoios  baptismi  vicem  implesse,  quum  in  navicula 
fiuctibus  adspei  si  operti  sunt;  ipsum  quoque  Petrum  per  mare  in- 
gredientem  satis  mersum.  Ut  opinor  autem,  almd  adspergi  vel  in*- 
tercepi  violentia  maris,  aliud  tingui  disciplina  religionis. 

t  Neque  ego  renuo,  divinum  heneficiuai,  id  est,  abolitonem  de- 
lictorum,  inituris  aquam  omni  modo  salvum  esse:  sed  ut  eo  perve- 
Tiiie  CDntingat  elaborandum  est;  quis  enim  tibi  tarn  infidx  pteniten- 
^x  viro,  asperginem  unam  cujuslibet  aquic  commodabit. 


131 

«li  that  very  point,  that  it  was  unnecessary,  he  being 
already  baptized;  but  otherwise  it  would  have  been  re- 
quisite, and,  in  the  opinion  of  tl^s  Father,  a  baptism. 
The  perfusion  of  water  on  the  feet  and  hands,  and  head 
(for  that  was  the  full  extent  of  Peter's  request)  \vas, 
according  to  TertuUian,  a  baptism.  It  appears  also  to 
have  been  alleged  by  certain  persons  of  eminence  at 
that  time,  that  the  apostles  had  been  baptized  when 
they  were  aspersed  or  sprinkled  with  the  water  thrown 
upon  them  in  the  ship  by  the  dashing  of  the  waves 
against  the  vessel  in  the  storm,  and  at  any  rate  that 
Peter  was  satis  mersum,  fully  dipped,  when  he 
walked  through  the  sea  to  meet  his  Lord.  The  opinion 
of  these  persons,  then,  was,  that  the  sprinkling  of  wa- 
ter upon  a  person,  as  well  as  the  partial  immersion  of 
Peter  (for  take  notice  he  did  not  sink  entirely  under 
water)  was  truly  and  properly  a  baptism.  And  to  this 
TertuUian  offers  no  odier  objection  than  that  such  ap> 
plications  of  water  to  the  body  w^anted  the  form  of  re- 
ligion to  constitute  them  proper  baptisms;  which  fact 
leaves  this  obvious  inference,  that,  in  his  estimation,  if 
these  applications  had  been  religiously  made  they  would 
have  been  truly  valid  baptisms.  Let  it  also  be  borne  in 
memory,  that  this  Father,  in  speaking  of  the  initiatory 
baptisms  of  the  Pagans,  which  consisted  of  both  sprink- 
lings and  immersions,  uses  the  words  by  which  the 
Christian  baptism  is  frequently  expressed,  viz.  *'  tinguo'' 
and  "  lavacrum,^''  and  that  he  classes  the  washing  of  ima- 
ges, which  was  performed  either  by  affusion  or  immer- 
sion, nay  the  sprinkling  of  houses  and  temples,  with  the 
other  baptisms  of  Pagan  antiquity:  all  which  facts  prove 
that  he  considered  any  religious  application  of  water  a 
baptism;  and  moreover,  that  in  the  second  century  the 
words  by  which  the  Christian  baptism  is  expressed 
were  applied  in  the  precise  sense  which  ^ve  no^v  contend 
they  should  be. 

I  will  also  wait  to  lay  before  the  reader  a  passage 
from  Clement  Alexandrinus,  who  was  so  entirely  con- 


132 

temporary  \vith  Tertullian  that  tliey  both  died  in  the 
same  }^ear,  220.  Speaking  of  the  washing  of  the  hands 
and  the  feet  among  the  Pagans  before  praying  and  sa- 
crificing, he  says,  "  Thus,  they  say,  it  behoves  them, 
having  been  washed,  to  approach  the  sacrifices  and 
prayers  with  purity  and  neatness;  and  this,  indeed, 
should  happen  on  account  of  the  symbol  itself,  which 
requires  the  worshipper  to  be  externally  ornate  and 
pure.  For,  indeed,  purity  is  the  prerequisite  for  relish- 
ing holy  things.  And  this,  indeed,  it  would  seem,  is 
tlie  image  of  baptism  rvfuch  from  Moses  has  been  hand- 
ed doxvn  by  the  poets  after  this  manner,  Penelope 
'  In  waters  washed  and  clad  in  vestments  pure' 

goes  forth  to  prayer,  but  Telemachus 

'  Laving  his  hands  in  the  grey  sea  to  Pallas  prayed.' 

And  this  custom  was  so  scrupulously  pursued  by  the 
Jews  that  they  would  often  be  so  baptized  in  bed.''^^ 

Here  washing  the  hands  before  praying  and  sacrific- 
ing is  expressly,  and  by  its  appropriate  Greek  name, 
called  a  baptism;  and  what  is  still  more  remarkable, 
nay  important  in  this  controversy,  we  are  told  the  Jews 
were  in  the  habit  of  being  thus  baptized  in  bed,  that  is, 
washing  their  hands  before  they  prayed.  So  that  Cle- 
ment Alexandrinus  not  only  understood  that  a  partial 
Vi^ashing  could  be  a  baptism,  but  also  that  washing  a 
part  of  the  body  is  the  baptism  of  the  person.  The 
Jews  were  often  baptized  in  bed!  How  deci- 
sive is  this  citation  against  the  interpretation  of  the 
words  BocTTTi^o}  and  BoiTTTio-^w*  by  Baptist  writers,  against 

*  Clemens  Alex.  lib.  4.  strom.  ravTvi  toi  M>^<^v/i*ivovi  <px<rt  3f7»  Itt/ 
7tt<;  lipeiroitct?  x<i«  ran;  iv^cci  kvcit  tcxOdpovi  x**  Xxf^Tr^ovi  x<js<  tcvto  f^iv 
e'y/t/BoAou  ;t^«g<v  yhio-iat  ro  ii,r-)hv  KiKoo-f^^aica  n  text  yiyrKT-Bai  ctyvitx  §6 
ifi  <p^ovitv  ocnx  x<i<  ?>)  Kxi  n  imcov  rov  /ixsriic^uxTOi  s'oj  eiv  xxi  it  Ik  Muw 
TiMi  TTx^xoe^of^'iVYi  ro7i  iirXirjTXii  uo-zrui 

'\l  "h'v^^i'ixi^'im  KxSx^x  y^^ot  '//xxT   i^ovcrx 
it  -rrcveXcTTTi  Itti  rnv  Ivy^nv  i^x^r»i  TviX'i/^xx,9(  Si 

ificf  TeuT»  lovidiMv  ai  kxi  to  TroWccKig  tTri  xoirn  /3x7rTiC^t76».i, 


133 

tlieir  exposition  of  Mark  vii.  4  and  8.  and  against  their 
unfounded  assertions  that  the  ancient  Fathers  always 
used  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  to  denote  the  im- 
mersion of  the  whole  body. 

I  cannot  proceed  farther  in  this  review  without  first 
noticingan  important  concession  of  Tertullian  respecting 
the  mode  of  baptism  most  commonly  practised  in  his 
day,  namely,  trine  immersion.  In  his  book  De  corona 
Militis,  cap.  3.  he  defends  the  practice  of  wearing  the 
military  crown  on  the  principle  of  custom,  which  he 
contends  must  have  emanated  from  tradition.  In  enume- 
rating various  usages  then  existing  in  the  church,  which 
were  not  to  be  vindicated  by  scripture  but  on  the  prin- 
ciple thus  assumed,  he  begins  with  baptism  as  then 
most  commonly  administered.*'  "  That  I  may,  there- 
fore, begin  with  baptism:  When  about  to  proceed  to 
water,  we  then,  and  indeed  somewhat  sooner  in  the 
church  beneath  the  hand  of  the  bishop  [or  president], 
call  heaven  and  earth  to  witness  that  we  renounce  the 
devil,  his  pomp  and  angels.  Then  xve  are  dipped  three 
times^  ajisxvering  something  more  thaii  our  Lord  has 

*  Denique  ut  a  baptismate  ingrediar,  Aquam  adituri,  ibidem 
sed  et  aliquanto  prius  in  Ecclesia  sub  aniisiitis  manu  coniestamur 
nos  renunciai^  diabolo,  et  pompic  et  angilis  ejus.  Dehinc  ter 
mergitamur,  am\5lius  aliquid  respondentes,  quam  Dominusinin  ev- 
angelio  determinavit.  Inde  suscepti,  lacds  et  mellis  concordiam 
praegustamus.  Exque  ea  die,  lavacio  quolidiano  per  totam  hebdo- 
madam  abstinemus.  Eucharisiii'e  sacramentum  et  in  tempore  vic- 
tus,  el  omnibus  mandatum  a  Domino,  etiam  antelucanis  ccetibus, 
nee  de  aliorum  manu  quam  prxsidentium  sumimus.  Oblationes 
pro  defunctis,  pro  nataliuis,  annua  die  facimus.  Die  Dominico  je- 
junium  nefas  ducimus,  vel  de  geniculis  adorare.  Eadem  immuni- 
tate  a  die  Paschae  in  Pentecosten  usque  gaudemus.  Calicis  am 
Panis  etiam  nostri,  aliquid  decuti  in  terram  anxie  patimur.  Ad  om- 
nem  progressuni,  atque  promotum,  ad  omnem  aditum,  et  exitum, 
adveslitum,  etcalceatuin,  adlavacra,  admensas,  ad  lumind,  ad  cubi- 
lia,  ad  sedilia  quacunque  nos  conversatio  exercet,  frontem  crucis 
signaculo  terimus. 

Harum  et  aliarum  ejusmodi  disciplinarum  si  legem  expostulas 
scripturarum,  nullam  invenies:  traditio  iibi  prsetendetur  auctrix, 
nonsuetudo  confirmatrix  et  fides  obseivatrix. 
TertuUiani  De  Corona  Militis  Liber  cap.  iii.  iv. 


j34 

determined  ifi  the  gospel.  Then  having  been  taken  up 
out  of  the  water  we  partake  of  a  mixture  of  milk  and 
honey.  And  from  that  day  abstain  through  a  whole 
week  from  the  daily  bath.  The  sacrament  of  the  eu- 
charist,  which  our  Lord  celebrated  at  meal  time,  and 
ordered  all  to  take,  we  receive  in  assemblies  before 
day,  and  never  but  from  the  pastors  [or  presiding  bi- 
shops]. We  give  oblations  every  year  Jbr,  that  is  in 
commemoration  of^  the  dead  on  the  day  of  their  mar- 
tyrdom. We  deem  it  unlawful  either  to  observe  a  fast 
or  to  pray  in  the  posture  of  kneeling  on  the  Lord's  day. 
The  same  festive  immunity  we  assume  from  Easter  to 
Pentecost.  We  are  deeply  wounded  if  any  of  our  bread 
or  wine  fall  to  the  ground.  At  every  undertaking  or 
entrance  upon  business,  at  every  coming  in  or  going 
out,  at  dressing  and  putting  on  our  sandals,  at  going 
into  baths,  at  table,  at  the  lighting  of  candles,  at  going 
to  bed,  at  taking  our  seats,  and  whatever  business  oc- 
cupies our  attention,  we  mark  our  forehead  with  the 
sign  of  the  cross.  If  you  demand  the  scriptural  law 
authorizing  these  and  other  such  like  usages,  you  will 
iind  none.  Tradition  will  be  presented  as  t\\t  founder y 
custom  the  confirmer,  and  faith  as  the  observer  of  them 
all." 

From  this  document  it  is  safely  inferrible,  that 
though  the  practice  of  baptizing  in  the  mode  of  three 
dippings  was  the  most  common  one  at  Carthage, 
in  the  time  of  Tertullian,  yet  that  there  was  not  then 
set  up  even  the  slightest  pretence  to  any  thing 
like  scriptural  authority  for  the  practice  of  immer- 
sion, or  any  other  part  of  the  existing  order  of  bap- 
tism; as  the  goi?ig  to  the  water,  renouncing  the  devil 
under  the  imposed  hands  of  the  bishop,  taking  the  milk 
and  honey,  and  the  abstaining  from  the  daily  bath  for  a 
week;  all  these  being  considered  as  standing  upon  the 
same  ground  with  taking  the  eucharist  before  day^ 
oblations  for  the  dead,  and  marking  the  forehead  with 
the  sign  of  the  cross.  Supposed  tradition,  is  the  only 


135 

authcwity  assigned  for  the  practice  of  dipping  by  a 
man  of  as  much  eloquence  and  learning  as  Tertullian.* 
Such  is  the  worthy  origin  of  immersion,  such  the 
mighty  proof ^  by  which  we  are  to  be  persuaded  that 
this  was  the  primitive  mode  of  baptizing! 

Ascending  a  little  farther  from  the  apostolic  age  it 
will  be  found  that,  though  partial  baptism  by  affusion 
still  holds  its  gi'ound  as  to  validity  in  general  estimation, 
still  at  Rome  it  is  thrown  into  the  back  ground  and  even 
some  objections  begin  to  be  opposed  to  it.  In  the  year 
25lNovatian  was  chosen  bishop  by  a  party  of  the  clergy 
and  people  of  Rome,  in  opposition  to  Cornelius  who 
had  been  previously  elected  by  the  majority  and  was 
already  ordained  bishop  of  that  church.  Cornelius, 
in  his  letter  to  Fabius  bishop  of  Antioch,  offers  a  plea 
in  favour  of  his  own  ordination  that  his  competitor, 
Novatian,  was  incapable  of  holy  orders  by  the  exist- 
ing canon  law,  and  consequently  that  his  election  and 
ordination  to  the  office  of  bishop,  being  illegal,  ought 
not  to  be  sustained,  and  states  as  a  reason  "  that  all 
the  clergy,  and  a  great  many  of  the  laity,  were  against 
his  being  ordained  presbyter,  because  it  was  not  law- 
ful (they  said,)  for  any  one  that  had  been  baptized  in 
his  bed  in  time  of  sickness  [tov  h  nhiv^  Sioi  voo-ov  Tre- 
^<;^u6€i/Toc]  as  he  had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any 
office  of  the  clergy."*  The  language   used  here  as 

*  I  have  said,  "  supfiosed  tradition"  for  Tertullian  does  not  even 
pretend  there  was  a  real  or  apostolical  tradition  for  the  observance 
of  these  superstitious  usages:  but  from  firevailing  practice  infers 
tradition  as  in  the  matter  of  the  military  crown,  concerning  which 
he  remarks,  hanc  si  nulla  scriptura  determinavit^  certe  consuetjidt 
coTToboravit  qiix  sine  dubio  de  traditione  mana-uit.  This  is  not  like 
the  solemn  appeals  made  by  the  fathers  to  an  actually  existing 
tradition  or  order  from  the  apostles  to  baptize  infants  as  a  matter  of 
universal  credit. 

*  See  Wall's  history  of  Infant  Baptism,  pt.  ii.  ch.  ix.  §  2.  Per- 
sons baptized  in  sickness  being  deemed  not  eligible  to  the  ministe- 
rial office,  was  not  because  their  baptism  was  thought  invalid,  but 
for  another  reason,  which  is  stated  in  a  canon  of  the  council  of 
Neoc?esarea,  which  sat  about  eighty  years  afterthis  time:  thus,"H<' 


13b' 
well  as  that  which  occurs  in  another  part  of  the  letter 

of    Cornelius,     Iv    uvr^    rji    kKiv*!     ^    iicuro    TTi^iX^^ik-—^ 

"  Perfused  or  sprinkled  in  the  bed  where  he  lay" — 
shows  very  clearly  that  the  mode  of  applying  the 
water  in  Novatian's  baptism  was  pouring  or  sprinkling, 
and  that  the  water  could  not  have  been  applied  to  but 
a  small  part  of  the  body.  This  baptism,  though  evi- 
dently subjected  to  some  disadvantages  and  embar- 
rassments, was  nevertheless  considered  valid;  and  as  to 
its  date,  though  it  is  not  very  certain  when  it  happen- 
ed, yet  it  is  plain  that  it  must  have  been  prior,  by  a 
number  of  years,  to  the  competition  for  the  bishopric 
at  Rome.  Mr.  Wall  places  it  at  a.  d.  220.  In  the 
year  230  Basilides,  according  to  Eusebius,  lib.  G.  c.  5. 
was  baptized  in  prison,  and  consequently,  on  account 
of  the  extreme  rigour  with  which  prisoners  were  then 
kept,  must  have  been  baptized  in  the  mode  of  affusion. 

Origen,  who  was  born  a.  d.  185  and  died  254, 
speaks  of  both  modes  as  being  indifferently  used'by 
the  church  in  his  time,  and  does  not  even  hint  at  the 
existence  of  any  thing  like  an  objection  to  the  mode 
of  baptizing  by  affusion.* 

But  soon  after  this  period  serious  scruples  were  ex- 
pressed relative  to  this  mode  of  baptizing;  for  in  255 
a  person  named  Magnus  writes  to  Cyprian  proposing 

that  is  baptized  when  he  is  sick  ought  not  to  be  made  a  priest  (for 
his  coming  to  faith  is  not  voluntary,  but  from  necessity)  unless  iiis 
diligence  and  faith  do  afterwai'd  prove  commendable,  or  the  scarci- 
ty of  men  fit  for  the  office  do  require  it." 

*  Origines  lib.  2.  dc  principiis:  Salutaris,  inquit  baptismus  non 
aliternisi  excellentissimx  omni  trinitatis  autoritate,  id  est,  Patri  et 
filii  et  Spiritus  sancti  cognominatione  completur.  Mersionem  sen 
abliUionem  illam  seqiiebatur  unctio  et  manus  iniposido,  Sec. 

Quin  et  in  carcere  baptizare  recens  converses,  receptum  fuisse 
videuu".  ettestatur  exemplum  de  Basilide  curnifice,  qui  inter  sup- 
plicia  Povvtamixnae,  Alexandrinx  puellae  nobilis,  qus  sub  Severo 
martyrio  perfuncia  est,  conversus,  ac  christianum  se  max  confes- 
sus,  in  carccrem  abreptus,  ibique  a  fratribus  baptizatus  est:  refert 
Euisebiuslib.  6.  capite  quinto.  Hist.  Eccles.  Magdthurgens.  Cent 
III.  cap.  vi. 


131 

the  question  directly,  whether  persons  -  who  had  been 
baptized  on  a  sick  bed  ought  to  be  baptized  again 
sliould  they  happen  to  recover.  Cyprian  answers, 
"  You  inquire,  dear  son,  what  I  think  of  such  as  ob- 
tain THE  GRACE  iu  time  of  their  sickness  and  infirm- 
ity, whether  they  are  to  be  accounted  lawful  Christians: 
because  they  are  not  washed  all  over  with  the  water 
of  salvation;  hut  have  only  some  of  it  poured  on  them. 
In  which  matter  I  would  use  so  much  modesty  and 
humility  as  not  to  prescribe  so  positively  but  that 
every  one  should  have  the  freedom  of  his  own  thought, 
and  do  as  he  thinks  best.  I  do  according  to  the  best  of 
my  mean  capacity  judge  thus;  that  the  divine  favours 
are  not  maimed  or  weakened,  so  as  that  any  thing  less 
than  the  whole  of  them  is  conveyed,  where  the  benefit 
of  them  is  received  with  a  full  and  complete  faith  both 
of  the  giver  and  receiver.  For  the  contagion  of  sin 
is  not  in  the  sacrament  of  salvation,  washed  off, 
by  the  same  measures  that  the  dust  of  the  skin  and  of 
the  body  is  washed  off  in  an  ordinary  and  secular  bath, 
so  as  that  there  should  be  any  necessity  of  soap  and 
other  helps,  and  a  large  pool  or  fish  pond  by  which 
the  body  is  washed  or  cleansed.  It  is  in  another  way 
that  the  breast  of  a  believer  is  washed;  after  another 
fashion  that  the  mind  of  a  man  is  cleansed  by  faith.  In 
the  sacraments  of  salvation,  when  necessity  compels, 
the  shortest  ways  of  transacting  divine  matters  do,  by 
God's  gracious  dispensation,  confer  the  whole  benefit. 
And  no  man  need  therefore  think  otherwise,  because 
these  sick  people  when  they  receive  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  have  nothing  but  an  affusion  or  sprinkling;  when 
as  the  holy  scripture  by  the  prophet  Ezekial  says,  "  / 
will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you  and  ye  shall  he 
clean. ''^^ 

"  Also  it  is  said,  That  soul  shall  be  cut  off 
from  Israel,  because  the  water  of  aspersion  has  not 
been   sprinkled  upon  him."  Again,  The  Lord  said 

*  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25. 


13S 

unto  Moses,  Take  the  Levites  and  cleanse  them; 
sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them.  And  again, 
The  water  of  aspersion  is  purification.*  From  whence 
it  appears  that  sprinkling  is  sufficient^  instead  of  im- 
mersion; and  whensoever  it  is  done,  if  there  be  a  sound 
faith,  it  is  perfect  and  complete. 

If  any  one  think  that  they  obtain  no  benefit,  as  having 
only  an  affusion  of  the  water  of  salvation,  do  not  let  him 
mistake  so  far,  as  that  the  parties,  if  they  recover  of 
their  sickness,  should  be  baptized  again.  And  if  they 
must  not  be  baptized  again,  that  have  already  been 
sanctified  with  the  baptism  of  the  church,  why  should 
they  have  cause  of  scandal  given  them  concerning  their 
religion  and  the  pardon  of  our  Lord?  What!  shall  we 
think  that  they  have  granted  to  them  the  grace  of  our 
Lord,  but  in  a  weaker  or  less  measure  of  tlie  Divine  and 
Holy  Spirit:  so  as  to  be  accountedChristians,  but  yet  not 
an  equal  state  with  others?  No:  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  not 
given  by  several  measures,  but  is  wholly  poured  upon 
them  that  believe,"  &c. 

He  afterwards,  in  the  course  of  his  argument,  asks, 
*'  Can  any  one  think  it  reasonable  that  so  much  honour 
should  be  showed  to  the  heretics,  that  such  as  come 
from  them  should  never  be  asked  whether  they  had  a 
rvashing  all  over  or  onlt/  an  affusion  oj^ water;  and  yet 
among  us  any  should  detract  from  the  truth  and  anti- 
quity  of  faith?  "t 

An  instance  of  partial  washing  or  affusion  is  re- 
lated in  the  acts  of  St.  Lawrence,  who  suffered  martyr- 
dom about  the  same  time  with  Cyprian,  namely,  258. 
It  is  of  this  nature:  One  of  the  soldiers  who  Avere  ap- 
pointed to  be  his  executioners,  having  become  a  con- 
vert to  Christianity,  "  brought  a  pitcher  of  water  for 
Laxurence  to  baptize  him  with.'''' 

These  acts  in  their  present  form  ai'e  far  from  being 
incorrupt,  containing,  as  it  is  allowed,  many  interpola- 
tions and  fabulous  statements.  This  concession,  how- 
*  Numb.  viii.  6,  7.  t  Cypiiani.  Epist.  9. 


116 

ever,  does  not  affect  the  credibility  of  the  fact  just  re- 
lated, because,  says  Mr.  Wail,  '*  This  passage  seems  to 
be  genuine,  because  it  is  cited  by  Walafridus  Strabo 
(De  rebus  Ecclesiast.  c.  26.)  who  lived  before  those 
times  in  which  most  of  the  lioman  forgeries  were  add- 
ed to  the  histories  of  their  saints."* 

In  the  fifth  century,  immersion  or  sprinkling  is  men- 
tioned as  matter  of  indifference  by  Gennadius  of  Mar- 
seilles. Having  stated  the  following  opinion,  "  We  be- 
lieve the  way  of  salvation  to  be  open  only  to  baptized 
persons;  we  believe  that  no  catechuman,  though  he 
die  in  his  good  works,  has  eternal  life" — he  subjoins, 
"  except  the  case  of  martyrdom,  in  which  all  the  sa- 
craments of  baptism  are  completed."  To  explain  this 
exception  he  observes,  "  The  person  to  be  baptized 
owns  his  faith  before  the  priest:  and  when  the  interroga- 
tories are  put  to  him,  makes  his  answer.  The  same 
does  a  martyr  before  the  Heathen  judge:  he  also  owns 
his  faith,  and  when  the  question  is  put  to  him,  makes 
answer.  The  one  after  his  confession  is  either  wetted 
■with  the  water,  or  else  plunged  into  it:  and  the  other  is 
either  wetted  with  his  own  blood,  or  else  is  plunged  [or 
overwhelmed]  injire.^'''\ 

In  1255  Thomas  Aquinas  speaks  thus:  "Baptism 
may  be  given  not  only  by  immersion,  but  also  by  affu- 
sion of  water  or  sprinkling  with  it.  But  it  is  the  saier 
way  to  baptize  by  immersion,  because  that  is  the  most 
common  custom."!  At  the  same  period,  as  reported 
by  Mr.  Wall,  Bonaventure,  says  that,  "  the  way  of 
affusion  xuas  probably  used  by  the  apostles,  and  was  in 
his  time  used  in  the  churches  of  France  afid  so?ne  others; 
but  he  says  the  way  of  dipping  into  the  water  is  the 
more  common,  and  the  fitter,  and  the  safer. "^ 

*  Hist.  In.  Bapt.  pt.  2.  chap,  ix  .§  2.  Walafridus  Strabo  floarish- 
ed  about  the  middle  of  the  9tli  century. 

t  De  Eccl.  dogmatibus.  c.  74.  as  cited  by  Mr,  Wall,  Hist.  Inf. 
Bapt.  pt.  2.ch.  9.  §2. 

i  3  qu.  66.  art.  7.  cited  by  Wall  ubi  ut  supra. 

§  Hist.  In.  Bap.  ubi  ut  supra. 


140 

The  synod  of  Anglers,  1275,  while  they  pronounce 
either  dipping  K)r  pouring  indifferent  and  censure  some 
ignorant  priests  for  using  but  a  single  immersion  or 
affusion  in  the  act  of  baptizing,  declare,  that  it  was  the 
general  practice  of  the  church  at  that  time  to  dip  or 
pour  on  water  three  times. 

In  a  council  held  at  Ravenna,  a.  d.  1311,  either 
mode  of  baptizing  was  declared  to  be  lawful;  and  in 
1380  the  famous  reformer,  Wicklifle,  declares  a  similar 
judgment. "  Nor  is  it  material,"  says  he, "  they  be  dipped 
once  or  thrice,  or  -water  he  poured  on  their  heads,  but 
it  must  be  done  according  to  the  custom  of  the  place 
where  one  dwells."  The  synod  of  Langres  in  1404, 
mention  the  mode  of  pouring  and  none  other.  "  Let 
the  priest,"  say  they,  "  make  three  pourings  or  sprink- 
lings of  water  on  the  infanfs  head.'''' 

In  1536  the  Dutvh  baptized  infants  by  pouring  and 
the  English  by  immersion,  as  it  is  stated  by  Erasmus 
in  a  marginal  note  on  the  76th  Epistle  of  Cyprian, 
where  he  remarks  Perfunduntur  apud  nos,  merguntur 
apud  .4nglos.  "  With  us  (in  Holland)  they  have  the 
water  poured  on  them;  in  England  they  are  dipped." 

In  the  synod  of  Aix  in  1585,  either  mode  is  spoken 
of  as  indifferent;  "  Pouring  or  dippings  as  the  use  of  the 
church  isy'^  and  it  is  there  ordered  that  the  "  pouring  of 
the  water  be  not  done  with  the  hand,  but  with  a  ladle 
or  vessel  kept  in  the  font  for  that  purpose."* 

The  very  important  details  and  documents  thus  pre- 
sented to  the  reader  will  permit  the  introduction  of 
some  general  remarks  and  inferences. 

1.  It  is  an  obvious  deduction  from  the  foregoing 
facts,  that  difficulties,  embarrassments,  and  objections 
against  pouring  or  sprinkling,  appear  to  have  gained 
ground,  in  most  countries,  from  the  time  of  Tertul- 
lian  and  Origen  down  to  that  of  Wickliffe  the  famous 
rector  of  Lutterworth.  Immersion  appears  to  have 
been  the  most  revered  as  well  as  the  most  commonly 
*  See  Mr.  Wall's  Kist.  Inf.  Bap.  ubi  ut  supra. 


141 

])ractised  mode  of  baptizing  for  many  centuries;  affu- 
sion or  sprinkling  in  baptism  is,  for  the  most  parr,  con- 
fined to  jails  and  the  beds  of  the  sick  or  dying.  Almost 
the  only  exception  to  this  remark  was  the  practice  of 
the  churches  in  France,  and  perhaps  that  of  the 
churches  of  Holland  might  also  be  considered  as  one. 
The  French  churches,  though  they  appear  to  have  to- 
lerated immersion,  have  from  the  most  ancient  period 
to  which  we  can  recur  in  their  history,  always  retained 
the  primitive  mode.  Mr.  Wail,  who  Vv-as  partial  to 
dipping,  though  he  contends  for  the  other  as  being  en- 
tirely sufficient,  remarks  that"  Gennadius  of  Marseilles 
is  the  first  author  that  speaks  of  it"  (the  mode  of -bap- 
tism) *'  as  indifferent;"  but  in  this  that  very  accurate 
and  learned  historian  was  evidently  mistaken.  For,  be- 
sides the  fact  of  Jew's  baptism,  both  Tertullian  and 
Origen  not  only  never  object  to  baptism  in  the  mode 
of  affusion,  but  possitively  declare,  as  has  been  already 
stated,  the  divine  benejit  to  be  secure  to  those  who  re- 
ceive baptism  in  either  mode.  The  earliest  objections, 
or  rather  scruples,  to  pouring  or  sprinkling  any  where 
to  be  met  with  on  the  page  of  history,  may  be  dated 
somewhere  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century.  So 
that  Gennadius  speaks  of  baptism  entirely  in  the  style 
of  the  second  and  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
when  he  calls  it  a  wetting  of  the  body  like  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  martyr's  blood,  or  a  being  plunged  as  the 
martyr  was  when  immersed  in  flame.  Indeed  it  would 
be  easy  to  produce  passages  from  Tertullian  and  Origeu 
precisely  similar,  were  it  necessary  after  w^hat  has 
been  already  introduced  to  the  notice  of  the  reader. 
But  I  am  happy  to  find  myself  supported  in  stating 
tliis  fact  by  the  learned  Kromayer,  professor  of  theo- 
logy in  the  academy  of  Leipsic,  in  his  Ecclesia  in  Po- 
litia;  who  asserts  that  during  the  second  century  the 
convert  to  Christianity  "  received  baptism  either  in  the 


142 

mode  of  immersion,  or  sprinkling  of  water;  both  of 
which  modes  obtained  at  that  period."* 

Gennadius  and  his  countrymen  had  escaped,  in 
some  good  degree,  the  rage  for  dippings  which  had 
been  gradually  gaining  ground  and  extending  its 
claims  to  precedence;  for  more  than  two  centuries  it 
had  almost  every  where  else  proscribed  baptism  by 
affusion,  except  in  cases  of  necessity.  In  France  and 
some  other  places,  this  same  mode  had  been  observed, 
time  immemorial;  through  the  whole  progression  of 
ecclesiastical  affairs  it  always  maintained  an  equality 
with  immersion,  and  ultimately  was  permitted  to 
plead  its  claims  to  truth  and  primitive  character  so 
powerfully  as  to  receive  the  approbation  and  adoption 
of  a  considerable  proportion  of  the  western  church. 
The  fact  of  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  on  baptized 
persons  being  a  thing  so  well  known  in  the  churches  of 
France  and  some  others,  forcibly  struck  the  mind  of 
Bonaventure  and  induced  him  to  think  it  was  the 
mode  of  baptism  observed  by  the  apostles.  Indeed  no 
conclusion  can  be  more  just  than  this.  For,  to  say  no- 
thing of  the  powerful  scriptural  pleas  by  which  affu- 
sion or  sprinkling  is  supported,  nor  yet  to  plead  the 
judgment  of  the  bishop  and  church  of  Alexandria 
which  goes  far  to  prove  that  sprinkling  was  the  custo- 
mary mode  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  the 
very  manner  in  which  immersion  obtained  footing 
should  lead  every  person  to  consider  it  as  a  suspicious 
visitant,  if  not  an  intruder.  The  very  first  glimpse  we 
get  of  the  thing  is  in  company  with  various  other  super- 
stitious usages;  such  as  fastings,  kneelings,  watchings, 
impositions  of  hands,  andspecial  renunciations  of  the  de- 
vil before  baptism;  set  times  for  administering  that  ordin- 

*  Si  quis  adultus  vel  ex  Judaismo,  vel  Ethnicisnio  ad  christian- 
ismum  accessisset,  prius  in  doctrina  Christiana  erudiebatur,  et  tunc 
praemissisjejuniis,et  prccibuseius,qui;i)aptizanduserat,baptismunfi 
vel  immei'sione,  vel  aspersione  aquae  (uterque  enim  ritus  tunc 
obtine  bat)  accipiebat.  Kromayeri  Pol.  in  Eccles — Stat.  Eccl.  sub 
cent.  ii.  p.  90. 


143 

ance,  as  at  Easter  and  Whitsuntide;  and  after  it,  the 
tasting  the  milk  and  honey,  abstinence  from  the  daily 
bath;  and  all  those  grouped  with  a  tribe  of  kindred 
ceremonies,  such  as  the  military  crown,  oblations  for 
the  dead,  and  the  sign  of  the  cross.  At  first  she  is  com- 
plaisant and  polite  to  her  rival,  baptism  by  affusion^  but 
at  length  the  last  is,  in  most  places,  driven  out  of  doors 
altogether,  and  packed  off  a  begging  for  an  ambiguous 
standing,  a  precarious  refuge  in  hospitals,  prisons  and 
houses  of  mourning. 

And  is  not  this  the  usual  progress  of  every  usurper? 
First  equality  only  is  claimed,  next  precedence,  and 
last  of  all  domination.  Add  to  this  the  facilities  which 
existed  for  the  introduction  of  immersion.  The  Jews 
were  passionately  and  superstitiously  addicted  to  dip- 
ping; the  people  in  those  southern  countries  were  in 
the  habit  of  going  into  the  baths  daily,  wherever  it  was 
practicable;  and,  above  all,  immersion  fell  in  exactly 
with  that  superstitious  veneration  for  the  waters  of  bap- 
tism which  is  so  very  remarkable  in  TertuUian  and 
most  of  the  Fathers.  The  early  and  powerful 
operations  of  Jewish  habits  is  well  known  to  every 
person  who  has  read  the  New  Testament,  and  every 
one  knows  and  acknowledges  the  excessive  and  per- 
tinacious fondness  of  Jews  for  dipping  for  some  time 
before  as  well  as  after  the  Christian  era.  The  person 
must  be  dipped;  yes,  dipped  all  over;  if  so  much  as  a 
finger  were  undipped  the  immersion  was  incomplete 
and  the  person  remained  unclean.  Was  it  strange^ 
then,  that  such  persons,  embracing  Christianity,  should 
easily  drop  into  the  practice  of  immersion?  No  caicu- 
tion  can  be  more  rational!  But  there  is  a  well  known 
fact  which  very  much  strengthens  this  inference.  That 
Jewish  dipping  was  the  rage  of  early  times  appears 
from  this,  that  a  number  of  sectaries  seem  to  have 
been  impelled  by  it  to  more  than  Pharasaic  extrava- 
gance. 

Not  to  mention  the  Nazarenes  and  some  other  secta 


144 

lies  who  were  sufficiently  attached  to  immersion,  I 
will  notice  only  the  Ebionites  and  Sampsseans  or  Elce- 
saites.  Epiphaniiis  says  concerning  the  former,  "  The 
Ebionites  revere  ivater  as  a  God.  They  constantly  wash 
(baptize)  themselves  in  water,  in  winter  as  well  as  in 
summer,  for  the  sake  of  purification,  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  Samaritans."*  And  concerning  the  latter 
the  same  author  remarks,  "  They  have  a  great  venera- 
tion for  water.  For  they  almost  account  it  a  God,  as- 
serting that  it  is  the  source  of  life." f  This  was  push- 
ing the  passion  for  water  to  its  proper  extent,  to  be 
sure;  and  sliows  the  melancholy  length  to  which  the 
human  mind  may  be  driven  by  laying  too  much  stress 
upon  an  outward  rite.  Though  the  Christian  Fathers, 
and  with  them  the  Catholic  church,  may  not  be  charge- 
able with  so  blasphemous  a  deification  of  water,  yet  it 
must  be  allowed  that  even  ^6"?/ pushed  their  veneration 
for  water  sufficiently  far;  when  they  conceived  that  the 
baptismal  ^\■aters  had  something  divine  in  them;  that  the 
Holy  Ghost.,  as  they  believed,  descending  upon  them 
like  a  dove.,  and  comrnunicating  to  them  a  Jieavenly  in- 
jiuence  thus  regenerated  and  saved  the  soul. 

Now,  when  it  is  considered  that  the  primitive 
Christians  were  much  addicted  to  bathing  in  common 
life;  that  many  of  those  had  strong  predilections  for 
Jewish  customs,  and  others  were  easily  overcome  b}' 
the  infiuence  of  intercourse  and  example,  and,  above 
all,  that  thc)^  very  soon  l^egan  to  entertain  a  fond  and 
highly  extravagant  reverence  for  water,  it  will  not  be 
surprising  that  immersion  was  generally  introduced,  or 
that  by  the  time  of  Tertullian  the  practice  should  have 
become  almost  universally  prevalent  in  the  Catholic 
church,  or  that  it  should  so  long  and  so  generally  have 

T£  KCH   p/fi^»V!>5,   m  «yv<«rjtt£V  Or,itt^  CCTTfl^  Ct  S«/*«gi(T««.    OpCl^.  VOi.  J. 

p.  53.  cued  by  Dr.  Jamieson  Vind.  vol,  ii.  b.  v.  seel.  iii. 

fii  itvcn  r/iv  tortis  ix  Tet-Ti>'.  lloer.  58.  p.  461.  as  cited  by  Di'.  .Tarme- 
son.  jImcI. 


145 

held  a  decided  superiority  over  the  opposite  mode  of 
baptism. 

In  one  word,  while  the  primitive  mode  would  seem 
to  have  been  that  of  affusion,  the  mode  of  baptizing  by- 
plunging  the  whole  body  under  water  has  no  well  de- 
fined examples  to  support  it  in  the  history  of  the  church 
in  the  first  ages,  unless  it  should  be  those  of  Jews, 
Nazarenes,  Ebionites  and  Sampsaeans;  and  in  modern 
times  comparatively  few;  for  some  of  the  Anabaptists 
have  all  along,  and  do  even  now,  contend  for  sprinkling. 

2.  The  foregoing  facts  make  another  inference  equal- 
ly clear,  that  the  practice  of  immersion  has  not  been 
so  generally  observed  in  the  church  as  has  been  sup- 
posed. Throughout  the  whole  kingdom  of  France, 
most  probably  in  Holland  and  in  some  other  places  re- 
ferred to,  but  not  particularly  named  by  Bonaventure, 
affusion  or  sprinkling  was  quite  as  much  used  as  im- 
mersion, if  not  more  so.  It  appears,  also,  from  the 
passage  produced  out  of  Cyprian's  letter  to  Magnus, 
that  several  sects  of  Christians,  not  in  communion  with 
the  Catholic  church,  were  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  by 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  When  it  is  said,  therefore,  by 
Baptist  writers,  and  others  who  J  have  a  predilection 
for  baptizing  by  immersion,  that  the  whole  Christian 
church,  for  thirteen  hundred  years,  understood 
baptism  to  be  immersion  and  practised  in  conformity 
to  that  opinion,  the  position  is  not  true,  and  conse- 
quently the  argument  which  is  built  upon  it,  namely, 
that  immersion  must  therefore  have  been  the  primitive 
mode  of  baptizing,  falls  to  the  ground.  All  Christians, 
whose  practice  has  been  attended  to  in  this  controversy, 
did  not  practise  immersion;  but  many  of  them  prac- 
tised just  the  contrarv,  or  deemed  it  quite  immaterial 
what  mode  was  practised.  Even  some  sects  of  the  Anti- 
pedobaptists,  it  is  well  known,  advocate  sprinkling,  and 
the  Greek  church,  of  whose  immersion  Baptists  speak 
so  confidently,  did  not  always  dip  the  whole  body,  but 
a  part  of  it  only,  and  they,  as  well  as  other  churches 

T 


146 

where  immersion  was  the  prevailing  practice,  admitted 
baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkhng  as  a  vaUd  mode  of 
baptizing,  though  allowed  only  in  cases  of  necessity. 
This  appears  from  the  detailed  view  of  their  doctrines 
and  religious  rites  which  was  penned  by  an  archbishop 
of  their  own  and  published  afterwards  by  Kromayer. 
They  dipped  infants  up  to  the  breast  only  in  water 
when  they  baptized  them,  and  considered  0<*7rT«^g<v*as 
a  generic  word  designed  to  express  the  application  of 
water  either  by  immersion  or  sprinkling.*  The  judg- 
ment of  Baptists,  then,  has  no  parallel,  no  precedent  in 
the  church;  because  they  think  that  baptism  can  mean 
nothing  but  total  immet-sion,  that  there  is  no  baptism 
where  that  does  not  take  place,  and  that  no  wetting  of 
the  body  by  pouring,  however  perfect  it  may  be,  will 
pass  for  a  baptism.  They  must  go  out  of  the  church  to 
find  such  examples  of  immersion  as  they  contend  for-^- 
they  must  go  among  the  Jews,  Nazarenes,  Ebionites  and 
Sampsaeansto  find  precedents  and  judgments  for  total 
and  exclusive  immersion. 

Sect.  3.  Having  taken  this  retrospect  of  the  history 
of  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  will  now  return  to  Mr.  Robin- 
son and  his  history.  With  respect  to  lustration,  which 
the  author  insidiously  attempts  to  associate,  or  rather 
identify  with  sprinkling,  our  learned  historian  thus 
adds:  "  Councils  made  canons  and  emperors  issued 
edicts  against  it.  Constantine  the  great  gave  it  its  death 
wound,  but  it  did  not  expire  till  the  reign  of  Honorius. 
At  what  time  it  was  introduced  into  the  Christian  ritu- 
all  authors  are  not  agreed.  Some  say  Pope  Alexander 
I.  who  flourished  about  the  beginning  of  the  second 
century,  introduced  it.  Others  call  it  an  Apostoli- 
cal tradiction,  but  the  most  likely  opinion  is,  that 
it  was  used  in  the  sixth  century  as  a  complaisant  ac- 
commodation to  the  prejudicesofPagans,  and  afterwards 
continued  by  connivance,  till,  in  the  end,  the  legislature 
was  obliged  to  humour  the  popular  taste,  and  holy  wa- 

*  Vide  II.  Kromayeri  Scrulin.  Religionum.  p.  276,  278. 


147 

ter  was  enacted  by  law  and  the  use  of  it  regulated  by 
canons  and  rituals."  p.  421,  422. 

The  author,  in  this  passage,  as  well  as  in  that  part 
of  his  book  whence  it  is  taken,  artfully  and  sedulously 
endeavoured  to  impress  his  reader  with  the  idea  that 
sprinkling  had,  on  its  earliest  introduction  into  the 
church,  excited  the  warmest  and  most  powerful  oppo- 
sition. Ecclesiastical  canons  and  imperial  edicts  were 
thundered  out  against  it;  but  it  would  seem  without 
considerable  effect,  for  to  Constantine  the  great  was  re- 
served the  honour  of  inflicting  its  death  wound,  and 
even  then,  it  survived  with  the  wounds  of  death  upon 
it,  till  the  reign  of  Honorius,  seventy  or  eighty  years 
longer. 

As  it  stands,  this  whole  account  is  fable,  and  no- 
thing more.  I  have  shown  the  reader  already  what  those 
abominable  usages  were  against  which  acclesiastical 
and  imperial  influence  were  directed  with  so  much 
propriety  and  success.  But  these  were  something  else 
than  the  practice  of  baptism,  by  sprinkling,  and  our 
historian  ought  to  have  said  so.  There  never  was  an 
edict  issued  by  any  emperor,  whether  Constantine 
or  any  other;  there  never  was  any  decision  of  any  accle- 
siastic  council  employed  against  baptism  by  sprinkling 
during  all  that  period  of  which  the  author  is  speaking; 
much  less  did  it  receive  its  death  wound  from  Constan- 
tine the  great,  fond  as  he  was  of  immersion  (for  he 
was  baptized  by  sprinkling  in  his  last  moments) 
or  expire  during  the  reign  of  Honorius.  True,  this 
mild  unassuming  usage  was  unpopular  during  all  that 
period,  and  generally  speaking,  found  only  an  asylum 
in  the  house  of  mourning,  in  the  jails  and  lazarettoes 
of  the  east;  but  still  it  never  expired,  it  never  was  de- 
nounced as  unlawful,  but  on  the  contrary  permitted  to 
exist  in  both  the  Greek  and  Roman  church  as  that 
which  was  proper  and  valid,  though  restricted  to  cases 
of  necessity.  Nor  is  this  all;  we  find  that  baptism  in 
this  mode  was  as  common  in  the  Gallicarh  church  as 
the  one  by  immersion  at  the  very  time  Mr,  Robinson 


148 

says  it  had  expired  of  its  deadly  wound,  namely,  in 
the  fifth  century;  for  in  that  century  Honorius  died, 
and  in  that  century  Gennadius  speaks  of  it  as  being 
something  quite  as  customary  as  immersion.  And 
there  it  continued  to  be  the  popular  mode  of  baptizing, 
until  in  the  end  it  began  to  resume  its  original  stand- 
ing in  the  church  and  pass  into  the  ritual  of  other 
churches,  as  we  find  it  had  done  in  the  time  of  Bona- 
venture  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  namely,  a.  d.  1255.  In 
the  age  of  Erasmus,  1536,  it  was  the  prevailing  mode 
of  baptizing  at  Rotterdam  and  throughout  Holland. 
About  the  same  time  it  was  the  instituted  form  of  bap- 
tism in  the  church  of  Geneva,  and  all  that  line  of  re- 
formed churches  which  stood  connected  with  it  in 
doctrine  and  discipline.  From  these  churches  it  was 
carried  into  Great  Britain  by  the  exiled  clergy  of  the 
reformation  on  their  return  home  after  the  Marian  per- 
secution, passed  into  general  use,  and  from  them  has 
been  transmitted  to  their  numerous  descendants,  the 
Congregationalists,  Covenanters,  Seceders,  Associate 
Reformed,  Presbyterians,  Episcopalians  and  Method- 
ists in  America.  It  appears  also  to  have  been  intro- 
duced into  Germany  as  early  as  1536;  for  at  that  time 
the  council  at  Cologn  mention  it  as  a  matter  quite  in- 
different whether  the  child  were  dipped  or  sprinkled. 
Pretty  soon  after  this  it  became,  in  most  reformed 
countries,  the  popular  mode  of  baptizing.  The  de- 
scendants of  the  Dutch  and  Germans  in  another  age 
brought  it  into  North  America,  and  in  that  line  the 
practice  has  continued  among  the  Lutherans,  Moravi- 
ans, and  Reformed  Presbyterians.  In  this  Avay  the  thing 
expired! — and  thus  it  is  we  have  full  opportunity  to 
observe  and  appreciate  the  historical  accuracy  of  Mr. 
Robinson! 

The  historian  is  altogether  uncertain  at  what  period 
sprinkling  was  introduced  into  the  Christian  ritual.  If 
by  its  introduction  into  the  Christian  ritual  he  means 
its  being  settled  by  canon  law  or  a  distinct  form  of 
prescription  in  the  rubric  of  the  church,  it  may  perhaps 


i49 

be  difficult  to  find  any  exclusive  example  of  this  kind 
earlier  than  the  period  of  the  Reformation.  It  was  in- 
deed recognized  as  lawful  in  the  council  of  Neoceesarea 
in  314,  as  it  was  afterwards,  in  75  4,  by  a  decree  of 
pope  Stephen  III.,  but  only  in  cases  of  necessity:  and 
in  1311  the  council  of  Rauenna  declared  either  dipping 
or  sprinkling  indifferent;  and  the  synod  of  Langres,  in 
1404,  mention  pouring  or  springling  only:  yet  the 
earliest  notice  of  it  in  the  office  or  liturgy  of  any 
church,  is  in  that  of  the  Genevese  church,  published 
in  1545.  But  if  we  are  to  determine  its  existence  in 
the  Christian  ritual  by  the  Christian  practice,  we  will 
see  it  spoken  of  as  indifferent  in  tlie  time  of  TertuUian 
and  Origen,  and  allowed  to  be  valid  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity in  Cyprian's  time  among  the  Catholics.  We  will 
see  that,  as  practised  among  other  sects,  it  was  quite  as 
frequent  as  dipping;  and  that  in  France,  as  far  back  as 
history  will  carry  us,  it  was  as  popular  as  the  mode  of 
dipping.  Surely  these  facts  would  seem  to  say  that 
sprinkling  had  been  early  introduced  into  the  Christian 
ritual.  The  learned  historian's  notice  of  Pope  Alexan- 
der I.  as  connected  with  the  introduction  of  sprinkling, 
is  a  fine  stroke,  and  will  be  susceptible  of  infinite  im- 
prdvement  in  a  popular  harangue  against  sprinkling. 
But  it  would  be  as  well  if  the  plain  reader  were  in- 
formed that  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century,  the 
bishop  of  Rome  had  just  as  little  power  as  a  presbyte- 
rian  bishop,  who  is  the  moderator  of  a  provincial  synod. 
,But  he  inclines  to  think  it  the  most  likely  opinion 
that  it  was  first  used  in  the  sixth  century^  as  a  com- 
plaisant accommodation  to  the  prejudices  of  Pagans. 
First  used  in  the  sixth  century!  What!  when 
the  author  himself  tells  us  that  it  had  been  used  long 
before  in  times  of  Constantine  and  Honorius;  that 
councils  had  fulminated  denunciatory  canons  and  em- 
perors issued  edicts  against  it;  nay,  that  under  one  em- 
peror it  had  received  its  death  wound  and  actually  ex- 
pired in  the  reign  of  another?  The  practice  must  then 
have  existed  in  the  Christian  church,  else  ^vhy  were 


150 

.ecclesiastical  canons  made  in  opposition  to  it?  or  if  it 
actually  expired  in  the  fifth  century,  how  was  its  use 
by  Christians  in  the  sixth  century  a  coniplaisant  accom- 
modation to  the  prejudices  of  Pagans?  Just  so  flatly 
does  the  historian  contradict  his  own  tale,  which,  how- 
ever well  told,  is  no  less  contrary  to  truth  than  contra- 
dictory to  itself.  The  facts  already  introduced  to  the 
observation  of  the  reader  give  indubitable  proof  that 
sprinkling,  as  a  mode  of  baptism,  was  in  use  long  be- 
fore the  sixth  century. 

But  the  Pagan  business  of  sprinkling  is  continued, 
says  our  author,  by  connivance  till  it  became  highly 
pleasing  to  the  people,  and  to  humour  the  popular  taste 
it  became  a  necessary  object  of  legislative  interference. 
Holy  water  was  enacted  by  law  and  the  use  of  it  regu- 
lated by  canons  and  rituals.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  why 
the  legislature  were  obliged  to  interfere  whai  the  prac- 
tice was  previously  popular. 

Here,  at  last,  we  see  the  deception  which  the  histo- 
rian is  practising  upon  the  reader;  the  secret  leaks  out 
that  it  was- "  holy  water^''  which  was  enacted  by  law  and 
its  use  regulated  by  canons  and  rituals.  Very  well.  But 
what  has  that  to  do  with  baptism  in  the  mode  of  sprink- 
ling? Just  nothing  at  all,  nor  has  the  author  attempted  to 
show  that  it  has.  The  question  is  not,  when  holy  water 
was  introduced  into  the  church,  or  what  became  of  it  after- 
ward; but  when  was  baptism  by  sprinkling  introduced! 
— and  this  we  have  clear  and  full  proof  was  frequently 
practised  both  by  the  Catholic  church  and  some  Chris- 
tian sects  out  of  the  communion,  from  the  time  of  Ter- 
luliian  down  to  the  present  day.  The  author's  elaborate 
story  about  holy  water, then,  is  to  be  considered  not  only 
as  learned  trifling,  but  as  a  studious  attempt  at  mislead- 
ing and  deceiving  the  reader.  It  has  been  thought  a  mas- 
ter stroke  of  policy  with  infidels  to  attack  Christianity 
through  the  corruptions  and  deformities  heaped  upon  it 
bythechurchof  Rome.  Just  so  in  driving  home  a  stroke  at 
baptism  by  sprinkhng  Mr.  Robhison  copies  this  me- 
thod of  attack,  and  makes  his  pass  through  the  sides  of 


151 

an  odious  Roman  superstition,  the  sprinkling  of  holy 
water.  And  lest  the  reader  should  mistake  his  mean- 
ing, he  institutes,  p.  439.  a  formal  comparison  between 
Pagan  lustration  and  infant  sprinkling;  but  which  de- 
serves no  serious  answer,  as  it  is  the  result  of  a  distor- 
ted and  even  a  disengenuous  statement  of  facts. 

I  go  on  to  notice  a-^very  extraordinary  passage,  and 
the  last  I  shall  quote,  in  p.  448,  449.  "  In  the  primi- 
tive church  there  was  no  mention  of  baptizing  by 
pouring" — "  The  first  appearance  of  baptizing  by 
pouring  was  in  the  eighth  century,  when  pope  Stephen 
allowed  the  validity  of  such  a  baptism  in  infants  in 
danger  of  death.  Protestants  confound  this  with  sprink- 
ling; but  the  words  are  express  for  pouring.  The  ques- 
tion which  the  monks  put  to  Stephen  was,  "  whether, 
in  case  of  necessity,  when  an  infant  was  sickly,  it  were 
lawful  to  administer  baptism  by  pouring  water  upon 
the  head  out  of  a  vessel,  or  the  hands? — Si  licet  per 
necessitatem  cum  concha,  aut  cum  manibus  infanti  in 
infirmitate  posito,  aquam  super  caput  Fund  ere  etsic 
baptizare."  The  distinction  here  taken  by  the  author, 
between  sprinkling  and  pouring,  contrary  to  the  deci- 
sion of  Protestants,  who,  as  he  believes,  improperly 
confound  the  words,  is  unquestionably  futile,  if  not 
impalpable;  for  who  can  discriminate  between  profuse 
s^prinkling  and  what  is  called  pouring? 

Such  distinctions  are  hypercritical  and  fall  greatly 
below  the  dignity  of  history.  He  thinks  the  words  are 
express  for  pouring:  but  how  can  that  be  when  the 
vfox^fundere  signifies  to  shed  and  sprinkle^  as  well  as 
to  pour  out?  Besides  ikivs,  f under e  cum  manibus  limits 
the  sense  of  the  word,  to  the  very  action  which  Pro- 
testants describe  by  the  words  pouring  and  sprinkling. 
When  our  Lord  took  a  bason  of  water  and  was  wash- 
ing the  disciples-  feet  how  did  he  apply  that  water? 
certainly  not  by  pouring  the  water  out  of  the  ewer  or 
bason  upon  their  feet,  but  by  lifting  the  water  out  of 
the  bason  with  his  hands  and  letting  it  fall  from  his 
hand  upon  their  feet.  In  tlie  same  mode  did  Peter  ex- 


152 

pect  his  Lord  to  wash,  when  he  asked  him  to  wash  not 
only  his  feet,  but  his  hands  and  his  head.  This  action  is 
just  Avhat  Protestants  would  call  pouring,  or  sprinkling; 
and  it  is  remarkable  that  Tertullian  in  speaking  of  this 
fact,  uses  a  word  which  expresses  precisely  the  same 
thing,  namely,  perfundi.  Now  who  will  pretend  to 
point  out  a  difference  between  the  fundere  of  Stephen 
and  the  perfundi  of  Tertullian,  when  both  the  one  and 
the  other  was  to  be  performed  cum  manibiis  with  the 
hands  of  the  baptizer?  Perfundi  is  the  word  used  by 
Erasmus  to  describe  the  sprinkling  of  infants  in  Hol- 
land, and  certainly  he  knew  the  meaning  of  words 
quite  as  well  as  Mr.  Robinson.  The  baptism  of  Nova- 
tian  in  bed  is  described  by  Ttm^v^ug,  a  word  which  ex- 
presses exactly  the  same  thing  with  those  above  men- 
tioned. 

Both  the  expression  of  Tertullian  and  Cornelius, 
just  referred  to,  make  it  clear  to  every  person,  that  the 
assertion  of  Mr.  Robinson  is  totally  incorrect,  when 
he  says  there  was  no  instance  of  baptizing  by  pouring 
in  the  primitive  church. 

With  the  foregoing  examples  and  facts  in  observa- 
tion the  reader  will  see  that  there  have  been,  for  a  long 
series  of  time,  ardent  attempts  to  mislead  the  public 
mind  and  favour  certain  opinions,  explanations  and 
practices  which  are  directly  opposed  by  incontrover- 
tible truth  and  matters  of  fact;  he  will  see  that  the 
Baptist  writers  have  not  fairly  and  candidly  investigated 
the  historical  and  philological  state  of  the  question  con- 
cerning baptism,  and  that  the  prevailing  practice  of 
Protestants  in  general,  and  even  of  some  Baptists,  in 
reference  to  the  mode,  has  superior  evidence  to  sup- 
port it.  But  I  conclude  with  committing  myself  and  my 
book  to  the  candor  and  indulgence  of  the  reader,  and 
to  the  blessing  and  direction  of  a  gracious  Providence, 
and  with  a  desire  ever  to  say,  "  thy  kingdom  come, 
thy  will  be  done,  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven." 


ERRATA. 

Page  8,  line  1  from  bottom,  after  -wood  read  an^ 
9,        2  from  bottom,  for  t^^p  read  B^lp, 
16,       10  from  bottom,  for  g-jun  read  quia. 
43,        8  from  top,  the  words  if  we  are  to  credit  St.  Paul  and 
his  expositor  Grotius,  to  be  read  after  thtit  then,  in. 
the  next  line. 

52,  9  from  top,  for  as  yet  read  yet  as  it. 

53,  19  from  bottom,  for  ix  read  iv. 

56,      18  from  bottom,  {or  single reaidaingidar. 

77,      18  from  bottom,  dele  o7i. 

96,      ISfrom  top,  for/ireiew/onnread/iro^eo/brai. 


152 

pect  his  Lord  to  wash,  when  he  asked  him  to  wash  not 
only  his  feet,  but  his  hands  and  his  head.  This  action  is 
just  what  Protestants  would  call  pouring,  or  sprinkling; 
and  it  is  remarkable  that  TertuUian  in  speaking  of  this 
fact,  uses  a  word  which  expresses  precisely  the  same 
thing,  namely,  perfundi.  Now  who  will  pretend  to 
point  out  a  difference  between  the  fundere  of  Stephen 
and  the  perfundi  of  TertuUian,  when  both  the  one  and 
the  other  was  to  be  performed  cum  manibiis  with  the 

Vionrlc  rvf  thp  hnnti7.Pr'?     Pprfimdr  isi  the  word  USed   bv 


tible  truth  and  matters  of  fact;  he  will  see  that  the 
Baptist  writers  have  not  fairly  and  candidly  investigated 
the  historical  and  philological  state  of  the  question  con- 
cerning baptism,  and  that  the  prevailing  practice  of 
Protestants  in  general,  and  even  of  some  Baptists,  in 
reference  to  the  mode,  has  superior  evidence  to  sup- 
port  it.  But  I  conclude  with  committing  myself  and  my 
book  to  the  candor  and  indulgence  of  the  reader,  and 
to  the  blessing  and  direction  of  a  gracious  Providence, 
and  with  a  desire  ever  to  say,  *'  thy  kingdom  come, 
thy  will  be  done,  on  earth  as  it  is  done  in  heaven." 


.***■■ 


#'*«*' 


\.. 


% 


:-v-i^^i 


■^ 


■:■! 


1 


